Thoughts on sleight of hand vs. gimmicks

Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
I'm sure most of you will say that Sleight of hand vs Gaffs is actually a false dichotomy, so let me preempt that objection :). This is more of an essay on something I realized recently about using gaffs/gimmicks effectively. Before I proceed, I want you to have a look at these videos. The second video is especially relevant to what I'm going to say but the first one gives some context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO8BaW8zJk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhadLDp8QXs&feature=related

Now that you have seen the videos, you will admit that Akira was being very bold there. He allowed multiple cameras to watch his every move from different angles. This looks like a lose-lose situation because the audience feels like they can easily catch his sleight of hand and undermine his ability. I wasn't sure why a magician would throw his audience this kind of a challenge. What is interesting is that after letting the audience catch his muscle pass, he moves into ultimate 3 card monte.

Ultimate 3 card monte is one of those "impossible effects" to start with. He goes on to present it in progressively more impossible phases. The audience keeps trying to catch some sleight of hand, even to the point of being within inches of his hands but no one suspects the real method.

My immediate question was - Why doesn't anyone suspect the actual method? If anyone told the audience the secret it would seem painfully obvious. In fact, look at it another way. What would happen if you showed only this trick to someone who is extremely analytical (Sherlock Holmes if you prefer)? He would probably be able to eliminate the possibility of complicated sleight of hand by the end of the trick simply because the whole thing is too clean and effortless. Unlike normal 3 card monte there isn't any single moment where the cards could be mixed/switched. So why doesn't the audience discover the secret?

The answer appears to be that Akira has convinced the audience that he has superhuman ability in sleight of hand. His initial trickery has conditioned the audience to watch out closely for some sneaky moves. Since they give him credit for amazing sleight of hand, they don't suspect the true method at all and are badly fooled.

Why am I writing all this? I am a beginner in close up magic and I think there is an important lesson here. The lesson we can learn is that if people credit you with great technical skill, you can get away with using gaffs/gimmicks more easily. Therefore, if you are a beginner in close up magic, you might want to think twice about that latest gimmick/gaff on the market. You should focus on your technique and sleights first. Once your sleight of hand is good enough to convince your audience that you can perform miracles, you can blow them away with tricks that could never be accomplished with only sleight of hand and they will never suspect.
 
Aug 31, 2007
308
0
California
I'm sure most of you will say that Sleight of hand vs Gaffs is actually a false dichotomy, so let me preempt that objection :). This is more of an essay on something I realized recently about using gaffs/gimmicks effectively. Before I proceed, I want you to have a look at these videos. The second video is especially relevant to what I'm going to say but the first one gives some context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO8BaW8zJk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhadLDp8QXs&feature=related

Now that you have seen the videos, you will admit that Akira was being very bold there. He allowed multiple cameras to watch his every move from different angles. This looks like a lose-lose situation because the audience feels like they can easily catch his sleight of hand and undermine his ability. I wasn't sure why a magician would throw his audience this kind of a challenge. What is interesting is that after letting the audience catch his muscle pass, he moves into ultimate 3 card monte.

Ultimate 3 card monte is one of those "impossible effects" to start with. He goes on to present it in progressively more impossible phases. The audience keeps trying to catch some sleight of hand, even to the point of being within inches of his hands but no one suspects the real method.

My immediate question was - Why doesn't anyone suspect the actual method? If anyone told the audience the secret it would seem painfully obvious. In fact, look at it another way. What would happen if you showed only this trick to someone who is extremely analytical (Sherlock Holmes if you prefer)? He would probably be able to eliminate the possibility of complicated sleight of hand by the end of the trick simply because the whole thing is too clean and effortless. Unlike normal 3 card monte there isn't any single moment where the cards could be mixed/switched. So why doesn't the audience discover the secret?

The answer appears to be that Akira has convinced the audience that he has superhuman ability in sleight of hand. His initial trickery has conditioned the audience to watch out closely for some sneaky moves. Since they give him credit for amazing sleight of hand, they don't suspect the true method at all and are badly fooled.

Why am I writing all this? I am a beginner in close up magic and I think there is an important lesson here. The lesson we can learn is that if people credit you with great technical skill, you can get away with using gaffs/gimmicks more easily. Therefore, if you are a beginner in close up magic, you might want to think twice about that latest gimmick/gaff on the market. You should focus on your technique and sleights first. Once your sleight of hand is good enough to convince your audience that you can perform miracles, you can blow them away with tricks that could never be accomplished with only sleight of hand and they will never suspect.

Sleight of hand Verse Gimmicks is a never ending topic...

Sure gimmicks seem to be the easy way out, but they leave you dirty. Gimmicks can do what sleights cant. Sleights give you satisfaction. Etc, etc, etc.

My thoughts on it are who cares whether you are using sleights or gimmicks? Perform an effect due to its affect on people, how it looks, etc. Not on how it is done. Look at silver Dream by Justin Miller. This is a coin routine that has no explanation. Three coins vanish at the fingertips.

Than magicians see it and see "sleeving" in the description. They turn away because its "too hard". Wrong way to look at things. Why not take the effort to perform the effect.

Same goes for effects that use gimmicks. Electric touch, ultra smoke 2000. Two things that have hugeeee set ups/gimmicks. Yet look at what they can achieve. An electric shock, smoke from nowhere. Than people see the work needed and they turn away. They are losing out from some of the most amazing things, in the audience eyes.

Just remember that your audience has no idea how an effect is done. So who cares what the method is? Work for your magic.

Keenan
 
Jan 28, 2009
258
0
There are just simply some things that you cannot do with sleight of hand alone, and thus need a gimmick to do.

If you don't like gimmicks then you're restricting what you can perform, and for me, and I use both gimmicks and slieght of hand depending on the demands of the effect, the key satisfaction I get from magic is performing it, not the act of just doing a sleight.

And ultimate 3 card monte is an awesome routine from a legend of a magician.
 
Jun 10, 2008
1,277
0
You little stalker!
Well it has to do with one thing: inside the box thinking.

First off, many people are not creative enough to think of trick cards. They will usually refer to the fact that you're hands are doing all the work, so therefore you're doing something secret with your hands. Of course cards cant manipulate themselves! It must be his hands doing it!

Secondly, once the people caught the muscle pass, It's further enforcing the fact that he is using sleight of hand. Therefore, the people will continue to suspect sleight of hand even if it's another trick.

To put it simply, they just weren't smart enough to think of gimmicks.
 
Feb 9, 2009
133
0
Reno, NV
Sleight of hand and gimmicks shouldn't be a versus thing unless the trick can be handled with sleight of hand, then there is no real use for gimmicks that gives you the access.
 
Jan 1, 2009
2,241
3
Back in Time
I think gimmicks can work wonders if you use them sparingly and also combine them with actual sleight of hand.

The problem that most magicians have with them is simply Magicians Guilt. You think that because you know it's a gimmick or a set up, that people will instantly know. Which isn't entirely true. They'll know something is up if you act all weird, but if you act normal, they won't be able to tell.
 
Sep 15, 2007
1,127
0
30
www.myspace.com
Time.

you want time...

Why spend 1 yr. perfecting that pass you saw in your book? it is most likely because you want self satisfaction. and if anyone says different, that is a lie.

Spend a Year perfecting that pass or 2 weeks learning and perfecting a jog control.

Your audience does not give a crap about if you can do the hardest pass known to man, they just see magic (hopefully). The only way your Audience can be impressed by you doing the pass, is only if you tell them exactly how it's done and how hard it is to do. You just ruined the magic. Good job.

like I said you want to save time, not waste it. now I know there is nothing about gimmicks in my post, this just resembles the topic. It is just something to think about.

- Zac
 
Feb 16, 2009
217
0
South Bend, IN
When I posted this I wasn't thinking about purists or saying anything against gimmicks (maybe I should have made that clearer). I agree that the magician should use whatever tool will produce the most impact in the audience.

My main point is that the impact of a gimmick/gaff based trick is more if the audience is convinced that you can do sleight of hand miracles. I think the videos illustrate this point very well.
 

nayost

Elite Member
Jun 18, 2008
167
0
Los Angeles, CA
Well it has to do with one thing: inside the box thinking.

First off, many people are not creative enough to think of trick cards. They will usually refer to the fact that you're hands are doing all the work, so therefore you're doing something secret with your hands. Of course cards cant manipulate themselves! It must be his hands doing it!

Secondly, once the people caught the muscle pass, It's further enforcing the fact that he is using sleight of hand. Therefore, the people will continue to suspect sleight of hand even if it's another trick.

To put it simply, they just weren't smart enough to think of gimmicks.

i wouldn't say that they weren't smart enough to think of gimmicks.

Akira just did a GREAT job on managing/misdirecting the audiences, he had them EXACTLY where he wanted them for the ultimate 3 card monte.
 
Aug 31, 2007
308
0
California
My main point is that the impact of a gimmick/gaff based trick is more if the audience is convinced that you can do sleight of hand miracles. I think the videos illustrate this point very well.

I believe the main point is is that the spectator shouldn't really think its a sleight of hand miracle. True magic wouldn't have this thought of "sleight of hand". I think the goal of a performer should be that the audience cannot resort to any possibility of sleight of hand or gimmicks.

Keenan
 
I'm interested by gimmicks, but as a beginner I know that I need to learn and practice my sleights (and I wan to do it that way) before even considering using gimmicks.

So when I'll be done with the basics of card college and royal road to card magic, I may have the skills (and presentation) needed to perform flawlessly, with ou without gimmicks. At least that's what I hope for me ;)

As it as already been said, whatever the tools, when you got the skills, what people see is just magic, without even considering what you're using to achieve this!
 
Mar 6, 2008
1,483
3
A Land Down Under
To go off on a tangent (slightly) regarding what Z-Magic said. A great pass is 'magic' to a spectator. If you do anything that looks like you are further loosing the cards to the audience shuffling cutting etc. the spectator instantly wants if not on a conscience level to be able to recreate that action. To allow them to do that you will need to palm off the card to let them shuffle. But a pass creates this the audience sees the card go in the center and it is left there to their knowledge. If you use a pass in your ACR whether if it is a real pass or a bluff pass that is magic. However if you use a shuffle control or cut sequence the spectators will instantly know the method. Well not the exact method but they will know that what you did was not on the up and up.

But back to what was done on the video's, I feel it was very clever. The spectators do not know the actual mechanics of the muscle pass however they will think he had thrown the coin into his other hand. And by showing them that is what he did he set them up to be looking for the gimmicked monte routine.
 
Sep 15, 2007
1,127
0
30
www.myspace.com
To go off on a tangent (slightly) regarding what Z-Magic said. A great pass is 'magic' to a spectator. If you do anything that looks like you are further loosing the cards to the audience shuffling cutting etc. the spectator instantly wants if not on a conscience level to be able to recreate that action. To allow them to do that you will need to palm off the card to let them shuffle. But a pass creates this the audience sees the card go in the center and it is left there to their knowledge. If you use a pass in your ACR whether if it is a real pass or a bluff pass that is magic. However if you use a shuffle control or cut sequence the spectators will instantly know the method. Well not the exact method but they will know that what you did was not on the up and up.

The Spectator Doesn't Remember A "Pass" Or How It Got To The Top, They Just Remember That It Got To The Top... Magically. I Guarantee That If I Do One Routine Using The Pass, And one Routine using the dribble control, they will say "It Just Kept Popping To The Top!" For Both Routines.
 
May 31, 2008
1,914
0
I think both are equal. I mean; a spectator doesn't know if you're using sleights or gimmicks, so they're equal. Never count out gimmicks.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results