T.I.T.E by Red Devil

The effect from the participant/spectator’s point of view: Birth Month/Drawing Duplication 2.0 variation.

The mentalist places four business cards on a table. The cards represent the four quarters of the calendar year -each card has three months written on the back. The participant is asked to think of the month she was born. The mentalist turns his back and the participant is invited to mix the cards on the table. She is then asked to pick up the card associated with her birth month and think of a simple drawing associated with that month. She replaces the card on the table and mixes them again. 

The mentalist turns around and states one or two impressions he has picked up about the month and/or the object, which the participant either confirms or denies. He draws something on his pad or business card. The participant is asked to state her birth month and the drawing she is thinking of. The mentalist turns around his pad/card. He has correctly divined both the month and the thought-of drawing.

HONEST THOUGHTS

Red Devil has been something of a breath of fresh air in the world of informal, close up mentalism. The hype is normally kept to a minimum, the success of his initial releases hasn’t led to the arrogance that often afflicts creators who receive a little praise on the forums and -most importantly- the effects are almost all strong and thought-provoking. Red Devil also gets top marks for supplying his customer base with full-length demo videos -on this occasion performed with members of his family (Red Devil would probably be the first to admit that he is not the world’s most gifted performer, but the videos are honest and the participants are not acting as stooges). I’m sure I’m not alone in being fooled by the videos accompanying T.I.T.E, but then people with knowledge of mentalism techniques can often be easy to fool as we carry our own particular set of assumptions into any effect that we see -and those assumptions will often be completely different from those brought by normal people. Luckily, I think this effect will be rather good at fooling normal people too.

So what is T.I.T.E.? This is where things get a little complicated. T.I.T.E is the name of the PDF containing the details of a business card application of the C.A.K.E principle. The C.A.K.E principle turns out to have originated with another creator who released an APP featuring it a few years ago. Red Devil had independently created the principle to use with business cards -therefore both men have agreed to team up on a pair of effects featuring the principle. In reality, the core principle is actually quite an old one (as I read the manuscript I was reminded of routines by Barrie Richardson and Marc Paul -reversed), but it is used -as far as I am aware- in an original manner in both T.I.T.E and the original APP effect.

And the principle works as advertised. The mentalist genuinely doesn’t turn around during the routine; he doesn’t peek; he doesn’t use any of the techniques you might suspect in a routine such as this. And yet he will always be able to tell which one of four (sometimes five) business cards has been looked at by the participant. There are limitations: the effect cannot really be repeated; you couldn’t use, say, coins instead of business cards; there is -arguably- an element of dual reality in some of the routines that will make the effect less powerful on the participant than on any spectators; and there is a slight risk that the participant may spot something they shouldn’t -to his credit Red Devil addresses this last issue and offers options to lessen the risk.

The PDF features several routines using the principle, including the Birth Month/Drawing divination outlined above and an ESP variation with an added prediction. Red Devil also includes rough outlines of other routines that have been suggested by early adopters. Many of these -and some of the effects in the original manuscript- strike me as exhibiting a flaw that I think is becoming increasingly common these days. The desire to show new principles off to their best advantage often leads to routines that are overstuffed and lack clarity. Even the birth date/ drawing dupe variation I highlighted above is a little guilty of this. What power is being demonstrated here? Why are you using four cards to tune into a month someone is thinking of? Why are they thinking of a drawing? If they think of, for example, January and the sun, what does one have to do with the other? Sure, you can find justifications to make sense of the above, but fundamentally the routine is contrived to get extra mileage out of the method. The routines are sometimes being shoe-horned into the method instead of it being a seamless fit of method and plot (I feel the same way about any ‘Tossed Out Deck’ that doesn’t involve the deck being ‘tossed-out’: if there is no ‘tossing’, why is the deck being wrapped in rubber bands?). Compare this to the simplicity and clarity of an effect such as TERASABOS by Rick Maue: a wad of paper is placed under a cup while the mentalist’s back is turned. Using his special skills the mentalist divines which cup the object is under. Simple, direct, powerful. The most powerful version of C.A.K.E in the manuscript may well be the ESP symbol test -without the added prediction. Play up the test-conditions impossibility of the situation and you have a close-up miracle.

At $35 for a one-principle PDF, T.I.T.E is over-priced. But, given that mentalism is now a mass-market pursuit- and no longer the rare, mistrusted, black-sheep of magic- all of it is overpriced.

Overall, Red Devil has once again provided us with stimulating reading that will certainly get the old gray matter ticking and lead, no doubt, to some fascinating thoughts on the dedicated Facebook page. The principle lends itself equally well to stage, parlor or close-up and will surely find a home in many a mentalist’s repertoire.

 

 

Godspeed by Emran Riaz

The effect from the participant/spectator’s point of view: Spectator As Mindreader variation

The Mentalist takes out two business cards, handing one to the participant. He writes something on his own card and then asks the participant to write down a word that is personal to her. They exchange face-down cards and, without looking, place them out of sight. 

The Mentalist then asks the spectator to imagine being in a familiar environment and name out loud two things that she sees. She checks the mentalists’ business card and discovers he has predicted one or both of the named objects.

Finally, the mentalist asks the participant to focus on her personal word. He names it.

 

HONEST THOUGHTS

To peek or not to peek -that is the question. If you ask someone to write down a thought you may have already lessened the impact of the effect; if you then ask them to hand the written information to you, you have lessened the impact a little further. If you tear up the information I believe the impact has lessened again (though I know many very talented and experienced performers disagree). There are many ways to get around these potential problems, of course: have the card placed in a secure envelope (and possibly perform the routine as remote viewing); have the information written on a page of a pad and torn out; perform a switch which means their billet was, presumably, never touched; ‘steam’ your way through; or go prop-less and avoid the issue altogether -while bringing up a host of other issues.

Yet, many performers continue to swear by old-school centre tears and peeks, and there is still a thriving industry in creating new variations. Thankfully, we appear to have left behind the era of the $200 peek- those responsible now appear to have disappeared (gone off to some tropical hideaway to count their money, no doubt).

Godspeed, the new full-business card peek from Emran Riaz is every bit as good as many of the more expensive peeks which have preceded it and would probably be fairly priced at $10. It is currently $15 (it was previously released as one of the effects/utilities on a multiple effects PDF/video-file release which originally retailed for $25, I believe).

I find it incredible that this peek has never been in the literature before, but if that is the case, then Emran is to be congratulated on coming up with something so simple, so obvious (once you know how), and so bizarrely overlooked. Having said that, it will take a little daring for many mentalists to perform this, and its major drawback is that, if you don’t perform it smoothly, you are most probably 100% busted. The type of business card you use may also be crucial for a successful performance of this peek.

The basic handling that Emran demonstrates is fine, but the really interesting version here is the spectator as mind-reader variation. Having the spectator mimic your actions offers a pretty decent logic for the card being handed over, and it has the nice bonus of silently proving to the participant that you couldn’t possibly have read anything on the card -after all, they placed your card out of sight and it was impossible for them to read it. It’s a technique that was exploited for years by Uri Geller and has, I think, been under-utilized by mentalists since then -especially in close up billet work and drawing duplications. You can get away with a lot of sins if their hands are full!

The video demonstrations and explanations are filmed in a basic fashion but do their job, and Emran seems to be an engaging, likable performer. Personally, I continue to believe that asking the participant to hand you the card that they have just written on is a compromise too far (unless there is a further logical disconnect within the routine), but if you’re on the lookout for a clean, full business card peek -and you enjoy the thrill of performing with a little daring-then ‘Godspeed’ could be just what you’re looking for.

The Article by Looch

The effect from the participant/spectator’s point of view:

The mentalist has, some days previously, given a padded envelope into the safe-keeping of a participant. The envelope has been marked to prevent it being switched. At the time of the performance, the participant hands the envelope to the mentalist who has the participant verify the markings on it are the originals. The mentalist cuts open the envelope with scissors, revealing a clipboard is inside. The participant removes the clipboard from the envelope. Securely taped to the front of the clipboard is a small coin envelope. The envelope is opened and a folded prediction is removed by the participant. The prediction is read out. It contains the headlines of that day’s newspaper.

HONEST THOUGHTS

Headline predictions seem to split the mentalism community. Some people consider them the ultimate publicity generator; others avoid them, worried that the powers being claimed are too great, too unbelievable, or that the effect places you at the mercy of events (who wants to predict the headlines on the day of a national disaster!)

But anyone who has witnessed a clean headline prediction will know how powerful they can be (no one who saw Ian Rowland’s headline prediction on British TV’s ‘Richard and Judy’ show will forget Richard Madeley’s stunned expression as he read out Rowland’s prediction of that morning’s headlines).

There have been many approaches to the effect from traditional envelope predictions such as ‘Stop Press!’, The Bally Prediction’, ‘Before The Presses Roll’ etc (Lee Earle has two versions that are particularly clean), to the more unusual and elaborate presentations involving glass boxes, cases with glass tubes inside and -oddly, but rather wonderfully- margarine tubs. I’ve always felt that a simple securely sealed and marked envelope is the way to go with these effects, and that is -kind of- the approach Looch takes with ‘The Article’.

This is the effect that Looch used to fool the Newark police force (although if they are anything like most of the other UK police forces I have encountered that may not be that impressive a claim). It was, however, a pretty test conditions prediction of the score in a rugby match which Looch successfully completed, witnessed by local journalists.

A version of ‘The Article’ featured in Looch’s ‘Black Project’, but this version has some refinements in presentation and handling. In essence, this is an evolution of Paul Stockman’s ‘Impossible Envelope’ effect (with full credits). Many people would have been impressed by the core method at the heart of that effect but would have been put off by the seemingly never-ending nest of envelopes that were required before you reached the prediction. By the time another envelope had been removed from another envelope one felt you may have had to have predicted tomorrow’s headlines to come to a successful conclusion. The slight oddness of a small envelope being taped to a larger envelope was another common concern (why wasn’t this envelope nesting like the multiple envelopes already opened!?).

Looch has dispensed with the multiple envelopes to create an effect that uses the original Stockman idea in a cleaner fashion. This is, however, not without its drawbacks. I am not totally convinced that having a small envelope taped to a clipboard is any more logical than having it taped to an envelope. In fact, in the police prediction, Looch revealed an envelope taped to a foam board which I actually think is a stronger, more logical solution than either Stockman’s envelopes or ‘The Article’s’ clipboard. (Would it be unfair of me to suggest it is harder to justify charging £130 for an effect using a foam board?).

There are also some handling issues. Compared to some other Headline Predictions this is a pretty hands-on effect. The mentalist has to handle the envelope before it is opened and has to handle it while the prediction is removed. Looch does, however, tip some nice ideas for performing the load, and I’m sure other people will come up with suggestions that could clean up this aspect of the effect. I’ve also found that the timing of the removal of the clipboard is crucial -go too slowly and you may end up in a rather oddly difficult tug-of-war with the envelope and the clipboard, go too quickly and you may be presenting a new effect -the amazing appearing envelope on the stage floor.

The props themselves are very well-constructed and, handled correctly, work perfectly. The video instructions are clear and well-filmed. If you are impressed by the clean removal of the prediction on the video demo you won’t be disappointed in real life. And casually mentioned in the instructions is a fantastic suggestion for a presentation that dispenses with the small coin envelope entirely. If you were using this effect on-stage, as a prediction of events that took place during your show, this might well be the way to go.

The nature of Headline Predictions means that the envelope (box, tube, margarine tub) containing the prediction, and the actions of the mentalist are being especially closely observed. Personally, I have always preferred predictions where the dirty work happens hours before the event, rather than during it, but if you are on the lookout for a Headline Prediction that allows you to perform an incredibly clean real-time load then ‘The Article’ is just about the cleanest you are going to find.

 

Isabella’s Star 3 Review

The effect from the participant/spectator’s point of view:

The Mentalist engages a participant in a conversation and offers to divine their date of birth and star sign. The participant answers a couple of yes/no questions relating to random letters then thinks of a male name. The Mentalist reveals the thought-of-name and then reveals the participant’s exact date of birth written on a business card.

HONEST THOUGHTS

Peter Turner has a hint of the hustler. I don’t mean that pejoratively. He perfectly fits the dictionary description: ‘A hustler is clever, cunning, smart and quick-witted. A hustler always wins.’ When you watch Turner perform mentalism you stare in wonder at his ability to think on his feet, to jazz, to turn on a dime and turn misses into hits -without missing a beat. It’s a style that has obviously developed on some pretty mean streets -not to mention clubs and bars- in the North of England. He may be the most exciting performer of mentalism in the last decade. He is certainly the most believable. But sometimes, what works for Peter Turner in performance doesn’t work quite as well for those who are less front-footed, quick-witted or daring of disposition. In many ways, ‘Isabella’s Star 3’ is the ultimate Peter Turner effect. This is, potentially for some, not such good news, but for the majority of others -and for fans of Peter’s previous work- it will be very good news indeed.

The prop-less star sign guess has been one of the “hot” effects in informal mentalism for the past five years or so. The original ‘Isabella’s Star’ was one of the first effects to allow a mentalist to name an exact date of birth (almost) proplessly. It felt like a major breakthrough in this type of effect. But it had a couple of potential downsides: you really had to think on your feet to keep track of the whole process and it was founded on the concept of an ‘astrological number’ -which was not only a contrived device but also involved the sort of mental arithmetic that automatically triggers fear in some performer’s minds and suspicion in some participant’s minds (we’ve all been asked to take part in some interminable ‘mental math’ trick at some point in our teenage years -the mere mention of ‘double your number’ may make some people run for the hills -some scars never heal!).

The final part of Isabella’s trilogy dispenses with the astrological number conceit and takes an entirely new route. Well, entirely new in this context, but in reality ‘Isabella’s Star 3’ is an amalgamation of some of Peter’s previous prop-less effects mixed in with ideas from Derren Brown, Michael Murray, Atlas Brookings and Max Maven. There is nothing revolutionary here in terms of method (if you are familiar with Peter’s previous work, which was/is pretty revolutionary), but the combination of methods is very clever indeed, and in certain hands -and for certain spectators- will be very powerful.

I say ‘for certain spectators’ because I agree with others that star-sign divinations work best performed on true believers in astrology -especially when the core of the technique is based on the principle Peter uses here. And I say ‘for certain performers’ because, like many of Peter’s effects, this will work best for a certain type of performer and personality. When Peter Turner performs an effect on you, you feel a certain pressure to keep up, your mind is active, alive, buzzing with thoughts -when he switches track on you (washing away his previous thought) it seems to make sense because his thought patterns feel so scattered to begin with. But, in the hands of other, more leisurely or hesitant or inexperienced performers, it may seem rather odd to be asking for a male-name out of thin air in order to reveal a personal star sign. That is not to say the ‘name-guess’ element of this effect isn’t strong -it is- but it is definitely a question of setting the correct tone, rhythm, and context.

Some people may also be unhappy with the final reveal that Peter uses in the main version of the effect (it also throws into question the concept of this as a fully ‘prop-less’ effect) but Peter offers alternatives. I would personally be tempted to use those alternatives (or indeed use one of Peter’s own tried and tested techniques when you are down to a couple of options). But I also understand why Peter has presented this in the way he does: not only does it guarantee a 100% hit rate on the exact date, it also gives a stronger finish theatrically. Either way, Peter gives you options.

There is also the question of memory work. This will depend on your previous experience with prop-less star-sign divinations. If you have none, you have a bit of memory work ahead of you. But if you have experience with this type of effect there is nothing here that should be remotely daunting. And, frankly, if you are going to perform prop-less star sign divinations you really should at least know the dates, and order of the signs -and if you don’t, Peter has included some brilliant tips and techniques to help you memorize them -a nice touch. (In any event, it is always nice to see an effect that demands a bit of effort and practice from a performer. In recent years, mentalism has attracted a rather large percentage of amateur practitioners who seem to be particularly lazy -demanding effects that work straight out of the box without rehearsal under the mistaken belief that mentalism is ‘all about presentation’. The hours spent getting the star sign dates under your skin will help immeasurably with the presentation of an effect such as this).

The book itself is well-written, the descriptions and instructions are clear and the added bonus thoughts are all instructive and helpful. It is well proof-read without losing that inimitable Turner ‘readability’.

Peter Turner has promised that this is his final word on this plot. I think that is wise. The market has become rather saturated with prop-less zodiac guesses in recent years/weeks. I think Peter is getting out when the going is good; having helped to popularise the plot, and having made such a strong mark with it, he is wise to leave the party when it is still in full-ish swing. And he leaves this area with a very strong effect that, in the right hands and with the right spectator, could be something very special indeed.