Bill in lemon

[mrgoat]

I am working on this effect.

Has anyone come up with a justification for a bill being in a lemon?

I considered the 'booby prize' to be a gin and tonic and slice them off a bit of lemon for the drink (could equally be a corona and a lime).

But still no real reason for the bill being in the lemon.

I've been looking at the 'famous' presentations of Malone, Eason, etc but am yet to find a real "reason" why the bill ends up in the lemon.

Anyone thought of one?

Thanks

Damian

[Jonathan Townsend]

I got about as far as the Let's Make a Deal line about "...or what's in the bag".

[Edward Pungot]

The only "logical" justification I could come up with is the transposition of the bill with the seeds of the lemon. By default of the lemon seeds now in your hand, it only follows, however absurd the plot may be.

You could admit temporary insanity and claim things like this happen all the time, we just don't notice these things until we point it out. In other words, concoct some crazy story and plot-line. That's all I have on the bill in lemon trick.

If you produced the lemon in a prior trick (i.e. cups and balls or an outright production) and threw it to one of the audience members (which is sort of funny with the whole business of the audience throwing lemons at the performer only the other way around) and later used the lemon for the bill in lemon effect, that would naturally follow in sequence of events. The lemon in this sense would be a carry over from the previous trick that would segue nicely as far as overall structure and transition.

[erdnasephile]

The only "logical" justification I could come up with is the transposition of the bill with the seeds of the lemon. By default of the lemon seeds now in your hand, it only follows, however absurd the plot may be.

Billy McComb published this idea (using a Roterberg Card Box and some white peeled peanuts) in a series of audio recordings (later issued in print form in 1987). I'm sure antecedents most probably exist.

In terms of justifying the plot, IMHO, I honestly don't think it needs it.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Anyone using a lemon production as a kicker ending/running gag during their act?

[Pete McCabe]

You mean, other than John Carney and Carl Cloutier?

[Lance Pierce]

One take on it is that you don't need a justification.

When we do what we do, it's often important to justify or provide motivation for actions, but we don't have to justify effects. The effect is impossible, and that's all the implicit justification it needs. To try to lend logic to an impossibility is an odd notion, I think.

[Edward Pungot]

Thanks for the reference. He is referring to The Professional Touch by Dr. Billy McComb for those of you out there who may be interested in the book form.

Good point about the unneeded justification. The problem about being too overly logical and critical about everything is the rest of the world and it's habits begin to look absurd when looked under a microscope. Best to hit them hard on the emotional subconscious front, as Dr. Lennart Green would say, "Work direct[ly] with the right brain. If you pass the left brain, you have to take care of logic and common sense. Direct in the right brain, much better" ( Lennart Green @ TED ).

[Jonathan Townsend]

Pathos and ethos tends to overide logos - old news.

So why a duck again? ( like anyone uses the word viaduct )

[Edward Pungot]

On second thought, better keep the logic and rationality in.

[Jonathan Townsend]

John Cleese described comedy as very strict context rules. Essentially the characters have to live in worlds which are both understandable (pathos) by the audience and be consistent about following the rules of their world (ethos) even when the overlap between the world of the audience and the world of the characters does not match up properly (humor or magic effect).

Or getting back to Aristotle - we seek to offer a persuasive argument for something which we announce as specious from the get-go.

;)

IMHO ethos has it that lemons are funny and limes are not. Eggs are funny and bubblegum less so. Pathos has it that they should get their bill back - but maybe not too quickly as they were foolish enough to give it to the magician in the first place. Logos let's us have "because I thought it would amuse you" as our character's reasoning for putting the bill in the lemon.

[Ian Keable]

Referring back to the original posting, I used to produce a glass, some fake ice, a small bottle of tonic water and finally the lemon. At one show, my volunteer had previously placed the corner of the bill in his mouth. When I produced the bottle, he took the top off with his mouth and drank the entire contents in one. He then stuck his tongue out to show the torn corner was still there. It brought the house down.

I'm afraid I dropped the productions over the course of time and now just take out the lemon, often with the rather clichd line: "you must feel like a 'lemon' standing here. You do? Well here is one."

Like many of the other postings, I don't think the production needs justifying. All audiences remember is that you found a borrowed bill inside a lemon - and I haven't found a stand-up trick yet to beat it. It's the first cabaret trick I ever did; and I suspect it will be my last (as I always close with it) - unless I drop down dead in the middle of my act!

[Pete McCabe]

Spectator lends you a hundred, you give them a paper bag as collateral. The bill vanishes. I guess you can keep the collateral. In the bag is a lemon. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Here's a knife. Cut the lemon in half so we can squeeze it.

It doesn't sound all that great when I write it down, but at least each individual moment makes sense.

By the way, Damian: if you don't have a justification, why are you working on the trick? This is not just a snarky comment, by the way. What I mean is, what attracts you to the trick, even without you having a clear idea of a presentation? If you can answer that question, you can probably design a presentation that will express something about you, and thus engage the audience, regardless if the lemon is "justified."

[mrgoat]

Spectator lends you a hundred, you give them a paper bag as collateral. The bill vanishes. I guess you can keep the collateral. In the bag is a lemon. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Here's a knife. Cut the lemon in half so we can squeeze it.

It doesn't sound all that great when I write it down, but at least each individual moment makes sense.

That makes perfect sense and is lovely.

By the way, Damian: if you don't have a justification, why are you working on the trick? This is not just a snarky comment, by the way. What I mean is, what attracts you to the trick, even without you having a clear idea of a presentation? If you can answer that question, you can probably design a presentation that will express something about you, and thus engage the audience, regardless if the lemon is "justified."

Good question. I've done close up for 30 years and now am starting to work comedy clubs doing stage. I tend to like classic tricks, overall. I like jazz standards too. So, I am researching popular stage tricks. And bill in lemon seems to be so old, and so used and so popular that I wanted to think about doing it.

The lemon doesn't need to be justified as such. Just why does the bill end up there. It 'makes sense' to have it arrive in a wallet. But not really a lemon. I like stories with my magic (not in a totally [censored] 'make a 2 minute trick last an hour' way), and was trying to think of a *reason* for the bill to be in the lemon. An explanation for the magic in a way. Not sure if I am making sense now...

Thanks for all the input. Excellently useful thread.

[Brad Henderson]

I am in agreement with Lance, to a point. I think the impossibility of the object appearing in a solid lemon is amazing enough on it's own to justify it's existence - it's just freaking impossible. While I think the lemon needs to be introduced in some way (obviously) I don't know if we have to dwell to much on the question "why a lemon?"

Having said that - my problem with the routine has always been motivating the destruction of the bill. (Assuming you are going that route). I have seen only one magician in my life pull off the "accidental" destruction ploy in a manner that any in the audience actually believed something went awry.

Even the seabrooke-esque tactic of making it look as if the audience made the wrong choice of envelopes remains, I believe, unconvincing to the audience - as an accident.

If it's not a legit accident, then it's not really a destruction (do they really believe you burned the bill? No.) - So, it's a vanish (sometimes fiery) and reappearance in an impossible location.

(here's a thought - why not play the destruction as "the vanish" - like the old crumbling the cracker vanish . . . "I'm going to place the bill inside this magic container and make it disappear." As you address the audience, or perhaps reading from a beginners magic book, flames and smoke are seen coming from the container. The book instructs you to sprinkle "magic dust". So, you reach inside the container and remove a bunch of ashes (obviously the "magic dust" it spoke of) and sprinkle them into the air. Now the "bill" has "disappeared". "Ok, on to the next trick in the book - making the bill reappear inside the box you handed out into the audience before the show began . . .")

I believe simply saying that the bill will appear inside a box, and then when they open the box to find a lemon - and then inside is the bill - is perfectly fine.

The "effect" is that a bill vanishes and appears in an impossible location. The box itself would be amazing - but inside a LEMON in the box?!?

I did the lemon for a season three years ago. Last year it was still being talked about at the venues. NO ONE mentioned anything about how the bill was destroyed/vanished etc. All they asked was "how did that bill get in that lemon?"

Accentuate that part, try not to let other aspects of the presentation confuse matters, and you will have a trick people speak of for years.

[Richard Kaufman]

Personally, I like the "Card in Orange," even though it's less performed these days. You might read Larry Jennings' routine "Hi-C" in his booklet Neo Classics.

[Dustin Stinett]

Im thinking about something Mike Caveney has said (and oh boy do I hope I get this right, though I am paraphrasing): Something is logical if it makes sense to me (the character).

The example is his bow and arrow trick. Why in the world does a grown man have a childs bow and arrow?

I am the greatest archer in all the land!

And this idiot is completely serious. The audience knows that this dunce means what he saysbecause they already know hes an idiotso the little bow and arrow makes complete sense.

Its all character driven.

If it were me, I would have said something earlier about being on a lemon diet (since its clear that, since Im fat, Im always going to be on a diet).

When the trick fails I say, Here, have a lemon. Im sick of the dang things anyway.

Knowing your Character makes such justifications incredibly easy.

Dustin

[mrgoat]

I am in agreement with Lance, to a point. I think the impossibility of the object appearing in a solid lemon is amazing enough on it's own to justify it's existence - it's just freaking impossible. While I think the lemon needs to be introduced in some way (obviously) I don't know if we have to dwell to much on the question "why a lemon?"

Having said that - my problem with the routine has always been motivating the destruction of the bill. (Assuming you are going that route). I have seen only one magician in my life pull off the "accidental" destruction ploy in a manner that any in the audience actually believed something went awry.

Even the seabrooke-esque tactic of making it look as if the audience made the wrong choice of envelopes remains, I believe, unconvincing to the audience - as an accident.

If it's not a legit accident, then it's not really a destruction (do they really believe you burned the bill? No.) - So, it's a vanish (sometimes fiery) and reappearance in an impossible location.

(here's a thought - why not play the destruction as "the vanish" - like the old crumbling the cracker vanish . . . "I'm going to place the bill inside this magic container and make it disappear." As you address the audience, or perhaps reading from a beginners magic book, flames and smoke are seen coming from the container. The book instructs you to sprinkle "magic dust". So, you reach inside the container and remove a bunch of ashes (obviously the "magic dust" it spoke of) and sprinkle them into the air. Now the "bill" has "disappeared". "Ok, on to the next trick in the book - making the bill reappear inside the box you handed out into the audience before the show began . . .")

I believe simply saying that the bill will appear inside a box, and then when they open the box to find a lemon - and then inside is the bill - is perfectly fine.

The "effect" is that a bill vanishes and appears in an impossible location. The box itself would be amazing - but inside a LEMON in the box?!?

I did the lemon for a season three years ago. Last year it was still being talked about at the venues. NO ONE mentioned anything about how the bill was destroyed/vanished etc. All they asked was "how did that bill get in that lemon?"

Accentuate that part, try not to let other aspects of the presentation confuse matters, and you will have a trick people speak of for years.

Thanks for that. At the moment, I am considering doing a bill change for the destruction/vanish and producing a piece of bill sized paper with I O U 20 on it. I concur, even as a Drama major, that it would be hard to make the audience really believe you've destroyed the note, therefore a vanish/transformation is a better option.

Maybe everyone is right and it needs no 'reason' to be in the lemon. I just like thinking about that justification...

[mrgoat]

Thanks Mr K, I will see if I can find that.

[Ian Kendall]

Even the seabrooke-esque tactic of making it look as if the audience made the wrong choice of envelopes remains, I believe, unconvincing to the audience - as an accident.

Dunno about this bit. I've used a version of Terry's routine for a while, and I certainly feel that there's a genuine reaction to the 'oh sh1t' moment when the blank paper is revealed, even to the point of nearly being hit by the person on stage. Perhaps some of this comes from _my_ reaction. Then again, I could be utterly deluded. Wouldn't be the first time...

[Brad Henderson]

And maybe you would be the second guy who would make my list, Ian.

I just think in this day and age, people don't believe the magician would really damage an audiences property, or not be good for it if be did. While it is undeniably possible that one could create the suspension of disbelief - I just haven't seen anyone (other than once) really pull that moment off (and then be able to keep that tension by holding the audience in the dramatic space). In (over)thinking about this, I think Its because as magicians we are 'real'. We do impossible things in the context of 'reality' (usually) as opposed to the world of traditional theater where the world is fiction.

Since we have real people on stage, with real items, of real value it makes sense for the audience to consider the action and consequences there of in terms of that reality - which leads many to the correct conclusion that 'there is no way that magician really destroyed that watch/bill'. And even if we manage to convince them at the moment, I think it is only a matter of seconds before their rational minds chime in and dilute the tension with assurances of 'he meant to do that.'

I think Its that realization that might contribute to some peoples dislike for magic - they see us as trying to put them on when they know there is nothing really at stake. And as many performers then try to draw that moment out, usually trying to make the spec feel uncomfortable --- if you think of it like that, we do seem kind of silly. But I'm rambling, and not even sure if I fully agree with myself.

But, I think the larger point is that anything which gets in the way of the impossibility of the effect is a detriment. If one can pull off a 'real' moment, the. It definitely contributes. But if it does not register as real, the audiences mind is now somewhere else other than the moment - and that may dilute the impact of the trick.

[Richard Kaufman]

Brad, it's easy enough to test your theory. Just borrow a dollar bill and set it aflame in a totally clean and convincing way--really burn it. And watch and listen to the reaction.

Of course they'll believe you've burned it.

They can't quite believe that you've done something so bizarre and stupid, but they also know that you did it because they saw it with their own eyes.

Of course you'll simply hand the person another dollar bill afterward--this is just to test the theory of whether or not people will accept the fact that you will destroy borrowed money on stage.

[Jonathan Townsend]

What would be different if you switched the bill while they opened an envelope, slipped the bill into the envelope and had them seal the envelope and then burned the envelope?

IE they can see the envelope burn and are left with their convictions about the bill they sealed into the evelope.

[Brad Henderson]

In real life - if people didn't know I was a magician - they might believe it. But the fact that we are "magicians", I think, changes things.

There is an expectation that the bill will be returned/restored and that creeps into the moment of destruction (or immediately there after if it is a legitimate surprise).

But your post brings up another point that has been debated before - if the burning is too clean and convincing, does that have a negative impact on the effect. I know Ammar made this argument, as have others. They contended that if one were to merely set a bill openly on fire, and the audience were to watch it burn, that the conviction of the destruction was lessened. (I believe Ammar said something to the effect that it collided too harshly with their net of reality, or something. I mention that only to help others, perhaps, find his actual statement. The "net" term was unique.)

But to your actual point, I think of the times I have set in magic shows and watched a burned bill routine. Not only have I actually heard people say (during and after) that the bill was not really burned, etc. but I don't recall ever (except once) sensing the tension in the crowd that suggested a belief that anything happened other than what the magician intended to occur from the beginning.

So there are two issues: Do they believe the object was destroyed and do they believe that it was an accident (creating a sense of "what now" drama)?

I think it may be possible to create conviction of the moment of destruction - but it would have to be presented more carefully than it usually is - but I do not believe that many could create that conviction AND have it seem "accidental" - which is the motivation for so much of the "business" which attracts many magicians to the burned bill routine.

[Naphtalia]

In real life - if people didn't know I was a magician - they might believe it. But the fact that we are "magicians", I think, changes things.

There is an expectation that the bill will be returned/restored and that creeps into the moment of destruction (or immediately there after if it is a legitimate surprise). *SNIP*

One of the first performers I ever saw at the Magic Castle vanished a borrowed lady's finger ring at the beginning of his act. I was sitting next to her. There was a visceral response at her loss of property.

There seemed to be a problem in getting the ring to reappear. The ring continued to be missing until the very end of the show though there were several moments when it looked like it was going to be brought back and something else went wrong or took a different turn.

The sweet woman who had lent the ring to that sadistic magician was nearly in tears by the end of the show. She was visibly shaking. Everyone around her saw it, but the sadistic and self-absorbed performer was so intent on his show that he forgot his audience.

The problem was, she didn't know the script. While she was at the magic castle, she had not seen enough magic shows to know how the script would play out.

When a bill is employed, there is seldom value to the particular bill beyond the monetary value. If something goes wrong, there is an expectation that something will be returned.

While if you asked the lady if she really thought her ring had disappeared, she probably would admit she had her doubts. Still, magic relies as much on audience's emotions as on their logic.

[Brad Henderson]

That's a good point - and I think it speaks to the "value" of something. This ring was important to her, and that importance and fear of loosing the item emotionally blinded her to the "logic" of the situation. The "vanish" was an emotional moment - having it out of her sight, was an emotionally charged state.

And I think, in that case, at least for one person you would have the tension we pretend to play with in other "destruction" routines - - - but do we really want to do that?

[erdnasephile]

1+

When I analyze the "magician destroys something accidentally" plot, I suspect the thinking audience member can only come to the conclusion that they have been had. In other words, I tricked you into feeling sorry for me (or in the above case--feeling anxiety over a precious possession), and you fell for it-- ha, ha!

If the destruction is intentional (i.e. Anderson Newspaper tear, The Reformation, etc.), there is an entirely different construct in the spectator's mind.

I think these types of plots would be a whole lot more meaningful and effective if the magician restored something that appeared to be accidentally destroyed by an audience member. In that case, there is no sting, and the magician comes off in a much better light IMHO.

[mrgoat]

God I love this forum. What a useful and interesting thread.

[Pete McCabe]

I just think in this day and age, people don't believe the magician would really damage an audiences property, or not be good for it if he did.

Good pointwe can use this. Borrow a dollar and destroy it or vanish it, and fail to reproduce it. No problem, you'll make good. But your wallet is empty. So you'll give the spectator something worth a dollar. Pull out your lunch in a brown paper bag, and offer the spectator the orange (lemon doesn't work with this idea). Of course you cut it open so the spectator doesn't have to peel it. What's this? etc.

[Pete McCabe]

I think the big problem with destroying something accidentally is that it's hard for an accident to mean something. They're essentially random. I'd rather motivate the destruction. You don't have all that many opportunities to make things mean something.

Doesn't somebody do a T&R photo, with the photo being of a couple, and the angry girlfriend tore the photo in half, and the trick starts here, with the magician bringing out the two pieces of the photo, and then restoring them? If so, then this is a great idea. If not, well, it's still a pretty good idea.

[Pete McCabe]

Heythree lemons in a row! What do I win?

[erdnasephile]

A soggy dollar bill that's missing a corner? :)

Those are great ideas, Pete.

With regards to the T & R photo--didn't Lisa Cousins do something along those lines in her Castle set? Copperfield as well (with a tissue paper heart though--no photo).

FWIW, I read somewhere that Mullica did a rather convincing T&R of some poor guy's dollar at one of the 4F's. (Convincing because the T was real, and there was no R!)

[Jonathan Townsend]

A soggy dollar bill that's missing a corner? :)...

That's the published gambit for fancy clubs where the performer borrows a 20 and finishes by squeezing the half lemon over a glass before extracting the soaked bill- a ploy to get to keep the twenty as a tip. Apparently effective in its time.

[Brad Henderson]

As I have said, I'm not a fan of the accident approach, simply because it is so hard to make this read as "real." Having said that, what about doing everything you can to MINIMIZE the notion of destruction. Present it as "the vanishing bill" or the "helicopter bill." The first step is to make the bill vanish, or turn invisible - which you do by burning it. You however do not make an issue out of burning it - in fact, you contend it's not burnt - it's just been made invisible.

Now, the audience is left to draw the conclusion - on their own volition - that the bill IS burned. Kind of a reverse psychology thing.

This is not unlike P and T's Magic bullet. They do not claim to catch a bullet in their mouths. That is too ludicrous and invites the audience's skepticism and dismissal of the event as a trick. Instead, it's a magic bullet that will merely travel from one side of the stage to the other.

It is the AUDIENCE who concludes and chooses to read this as "they fired a bullet(s) across the stage and caught it in their mouth." Which is how laymen think of that trick.

Maybe it would be wise to downplay the destruction completely, and allow the audience to do the work of conviction upon themselves?

[Jonathan Townsend]

There's a parlor version of the Pepper's Ghost setup where you could put a borrowed bill in the box and have it fade away.

AFAIK "invisible" and "back in time" are nontrivial to pull off as more than empty words, patter rather than plot.

[Larry Horowitz]

"when I was growing up I always wanted a bigger and bigger TV. When ever I asked my Mom to buy one, the answer was no. She always told me, we couldn't keep buying new ones because "money doesn't grow on trees". She said if I wanted a new TV, I should go work for the money myself.

Well, I never liked the idea of work. So I became a magician.

Now I still can't grow money on tress, but I can grow one hell of a lemon". (pick up lemon from fruit ball)

conclude as you see fit

[mrgoat]

Thanks for the ongoing thoughts. Larry, that's the type of justification I was thinking about.

[rkosby]

I realize you are just looking for a presentational idea but I got carried away so don't take these seriously.

1. Assuming you are performing on stage, Offer a gift basket of fruit as compensation for the lost money. Tell the audience it's a real bargain and ask a volunteer to pick on piece of fruit. The bill is in the chosen item.

Josh Jay's lecture bill to anywhere that might lend itself to this presentation.

2. Have a cup of tea that requires lemon. A volunteer chooses the lemon from a basket.

3. Describe a government fruit subsidy to justify the money in the lemon.

4. Offer to give the owner of the bill a work of art as collateral. Draw a caricature of the volunteer next to a lemon tree. Use cardiograph to make a lemon visibly grow. Shake the drawing, the lemon drops off the tree and a real lemon falls into your hand.

5. Trade the bill for magic seeds. Burn the bill. Fertilize the seed with the ashes. Grow the lemon from the tree. Or burn the bill and use the ash to fertilize the seed that ultimately produces a lemon.

6. Use the juice of a lemon to remove the ink from a bill causing it to change to a blank piece of paper. Combine the paper, juice, and peel and change them back into a whole lemon with the bill inside.

7. The borrowed bill changes into a supermarket coupon for lemons.
Change it to a lemon.

I'll stop now.

[Pete McCabe]

I have a routine where I borrow a one, change it into a hundred, and then the borrowed one is found in a change purse the spectator's been holding as collateral for the borrowed bill. When I mentioned it to David Acer he told me I was a bad man for doing that. I can't remember his exact words, but basically he felt that the bill to impossible location ending negated the change.

I can see his point that the underlying logic of the routine is less clear, or consistent. But I think the idea has merits that may make up for this. Instead of burning a billwhich sounds like dead time to mewhy not add another magic trick to the routine? And when I change your bill into a hundred, where is your bill? It's someplace impossible.

I don't know, but maybe if you borrow the spectator's bill and change it into a white piece of paper, which turns out to be a receipt from a grocery story, where you recently bought some lemons. That might improve the emotional logic of the story, if not the underlying magical logic.

[Jeff Haas]

Pete, one of Bill Malone's routines on his first DVD set is almost the same plot. He borrows a bill, does a bill change to turn it into another bill, then finds a lemon in his shoe, cuts open the lemon and the missing bill is inside. I think he said he uses it as his opener.