Paul Harris

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Philippe Noël » 11/01/01 01:40 AM

In his book "SuperMagic", Paul Harris states that "re-set" is on his top ten list of most performed/most requested card effects.
Any idea on which are the other nine?
Philippe Noël
 
Posts: 394
Joined: 03/13/08 10:43 AM
Location: Belgium(Liège)

Postby Bill Duncan » 11/01/01 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
In his book "SuperMagic", Paul Harris states that "re-set" is on his top ten list of most performed/most requested card effects.
Any idea on which are the other nine?


Years ago Mike Ammar published an edition of Magical Arts Journal called "The Act" which was devoted to Harris' close up act with script and theory. A great gift from from one of magics most inventive minds:
Free Flight
The Biological Shuffle
Tap Danging Aces
Real World Invisible Palm
(as a cod explaination of Tap Dancing Aces)
Wack Your Pack

I think it's a safe assumption that he'd use his most requested effects so these may be five of the ten. Every one of them is a better trick than ReSet but that's just my opinion... I could be wrong ;)

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Bill Duncan ]
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Rene Clement » 11/02/01 01:34 PM

Paul once said that when performing walk around he always uses the "Chicago Opener" as his opener.
Rene Clement
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 01/28/08 01:00 PM
Location: Queens NY

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/02/01 07:06 PM

I used the handling of "Chicago Opener" from Garcia's "Million Dollar Card Secrets" as my opener for many years. Eventually the illogical parts of it got to me, and I began using "Ambitious Card" instead.
Jennings has a very fine version of "Chicago Opener" that will go into the third book on tough material.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21024
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Bill Duncan » 11/02/01 07:40 PM

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Bill Duncan ]
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Philippe Noël » 11/03/01 04:06 AM

Dear Richard,
On which illogical parts are you refering in the Chicago opener?
Best regards,

Philippe Nol
Philippe Noël
 
Posts: 394
Joined: 03/13/08 10:43 AM
Location: Belgium(Liège)

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/03/01 09:26 AM

"Chicago Opener" has a major flaw: you spread the deck for a free selection at the beginning and only blue-backed cards are seen. A moment later you spread the deck and there's a red-backed card sitting in the middle of the spread. That makes no sense. Versions where you openly place an unknown red-backed card into the blue deck at the start of the trick are much better. Perhaps I'm being overly picky. I did the trick for many years and no laymen ever said, when I spread the deck to first display the red-backed ard, "That makes no sense." They were just surprised.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21024
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Steve Bryant » 11/03/01 03:05 PM

Chicago Opener has always struck me as a trick that appeals more to magicians than to laymen, aka real life spectators. There are hundreds and likely thousands of card tricks that have a stronger impact on a lay audience. I think the reason is that it falls outside the realm of being a trick that can be described by a simple declarative sentence ("he stuck a card on a ceiling"). For me, it read great on the page (in the Jim Ryan books, specifically), but I quickly abandoned it when it just didn't play for me. (If you are reading this and it plays well for you, then great; enjoy it.)
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Jon Racherbaumer » 11/03/01 06:21 PM

The Chicago Opener had its roots in the Chicago Bar Scene, although an early, early version appeared in M-U-M (by none other than Ricky Jay's uncle, Max Katz). Most of my original viewings of this effect were mostly with laymen in the audience, who reacted spectacularly--not to the first part, where a red-back card inexplicable appears and matches the selection, but to the second part where the tabled red-back card CHANGES into the second selection.

Richard the K is correct that the appearance of the red-back card is not logical. On the other hand, by placing a Stranger card into the deck and having the spectator later and unknowingly select it is an Elmsley plot ("The Blue Intruder"). This makes sense.

The Chicago Opener (sometimes called Red-Hot Mama) is NOT primarily a magician's trick. It is for lay people. Although I agree with Steve B. insofar as magicians REALLY LOVE this trick and, thanks to the Ammar videos, it's performed hundreds of times weekly throughout the world. Otherwise, it would not have endured for decades nor would it have remained in so many PROFESSIONAL repertoires, either.
Jon Racherbaumer
 
Posts: 819
Joined: 01/22/08 01:00 PM
Location: New Orleans

Postby Richard Kaufman » 11/03/01 08:38 PM

I've always thought the term "Blue Intruder" referred to Ron Jeremy. :p
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21024
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 11/04/01 03:22 AM

I've always thought the term "Blue Intruder" referred to Ron Jeremy.


Now that's funny! ;)

Burt
Guest
 

Postby Philippe Noël » 11/04/01 04:46 AM

Dear Cardicians,
I am surprised when you say that the first part of the Chicago Opener is not logical.
Personnaly, I think it is just a question of patter. When I perform Chicago Opener, I first ask the spectators if they know what a Transformist card is? Of course they don't, so I offer them to explain what it is. I ask them to pick a card and to put it back in the deck. Now I say that a transformist card is a card which back can change colour in just a snap. I snap my fingers and show them that one card and one card only has now a red back. Then I say:"Would it be a good trick if the only transformist card in the deck was precisely YOUR card? They agree and I show them that it is.
Then I say:"Now, I know what your are thinking, well, maybe not.(Sorry, this is in deed a Dan Fleshman line I think).
You are wondering what would have happened if you had chosen an other card. Well, I would have done an other trick.(Sorry once more, this is a Michael Ammar line I think this time). But let's try any way...
He picks an other card, forced of course, which is put back in the deck.
I now say:"Look, just a snap and here is our transformist card" I look through the deck and find no red card. So I say"Oh, but the transformist card in on the table not in the deck. What can I do? Well, as it is a transformist card it should transform itself.
What was you card? and I finish the trick.
Well, not a big thing but not illogical I hope!!!
Talking a bit more about this trick, I have always wondered why it was sometimes called Red Hot Mamma, just a name or a special patter for the trick?
To finish with this long(too long perhaps)mail. In which book can we find the "Blue Intruder"?
Philippe Noël
 
Posts: 394
Joined: 03/13/08 10:43 AM
Location: Belgium(Liège)

Postby Dustin Stinett » 11/04/01 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
I am surprised when you say that the first part of the Chicago Opener is not logical. Personnaly, I think it is just a question of patter.


I agree 100% with you Philippe. It is a presentational issue. I too cause the card to change via "magic." The effect is that the selection changes - not that the odd card was chosen. So in this case, it's supposed to defy logic, isn't it?

Regards,
Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California


Return to Buzz