Random I-Tunes Song of The Moment: Shout it Out Loud by Stryper
The Multiple Revelation Project Reviewed
Two DVDs, one booklet, more information than you ever thought existed about the Multiple Selection Routine and $40 bucks. Is it gem or is it rubble? Stay tuned to find out.
Effect
An old classic effect where a group of people (say 10) select a card. Each of the cards are lost in the deck, and then found in a variety of ways.
Method
The method is standard card stuff: card controls, false shuffles, and a variety of unique ways to reveal a card. This DVD set teaches several methods for each step of the routine. Further, over 70 different card revelations are taught . . . yep . . . 70!
The method is, as I pointed out, standard card handling. If you're have even a basic level of card handling skills then you'll be able to perform a version of this effect with all of the methods and ideas taught here.
Ad Copy Integrity
The ad copy is solid, but there is a small potentially misleading point. It says that this is all done with "just an ordinary deck of cards." There are, however, some revelations taught that require stuff other than "just" the cards. Some require a "card to wallet" wallet. One revelation uses a comedy card gag that is not "just" the deck of cards. Another revelation uses Kennedy's Destination Box which is a marketed product. The inner workings of which are not taught, rightfully so.
However, it was one of the revelations shown in the performance segment at the beginning of the DVD, so I was hoping to learn it. I didn't know it was a marketed product while I was watching the performance on the DVD.
The reason I point this out is because the ad copy claims that using "just and ordinary deck of cards" you can do this routine where each revelation builds and builds with "increasingly impressive" revelations. Well, both Andi Gladwin and Rob James teach us to build our revelations and that they end with the final big revelation. In both cases, they use a marketed product (Kennedy's box and a Card to Wallet). There's another revelation that involves the Omni Deck (another marketed product). So the main point of the project is slightly missed. They do, however, teach 70 revelations and 99% of them don't use any extra stuff, and amongst them, there are ones that can be closers, but none of them compare to the closing power of the two marketed products that the creators use.
Product Quality
The DVDs and booklet are well made. This set is a resource product, the kind of thing that you'll come back to over and over again to learn this or that, etc. That being the case, ease of navigation is a critical component. Fortunately, you're covered. It's super clear and easy to navigate.
The only complaint I have about the quality is that it is one of the most boring DVD sets I've ever watched. It was very difficult to get through. I have no idea what the run time was . . . 4 hours, I think. Every possible thing you can imagine about this subject was covered on this project. In fact, they probably could have left out a few things, shortened the set, and spiced it up just a little bit to make it easier to watch and less dry.
That aside, the material is taught well and thoroughly and clearly. As far as raw information dissemination, this thing is amazing . . . you just have to push through the boring.
Final Thoughts
This effect, while a classic, is one of the worst plots in magic in my opinion. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not this is a good product. If you are performing or wanting to learn how to perform a multiple selection routine, then this DVD set is a must for your collection. If you're David Roth and never (ish) do card tricks, you can skip this.
If you like this effect or the idea of the effect even a little bit, then you'll love this DVD set. Further, even though I hate this plot, I would purchase this DVD just for the 70 plus revelations taught.
This is an extremely thorough resource of different ways to reveal a selected card. Even if you don't do multiple selections, all of us likely have at least one "pick a card" trick in our repertoire. This is an excellent resource for learning to reveal that selected card in your pick a card trick.
Final Verdict:
4 Stars with a Stone Status of Gem.
34 Comments
Funny you should say that about David Roth because a little known thing about him: if there is anything else he is better at or more passionate about than coin magic, it is sleight of hand card magic.
It is not something mostly people know about him because you do in fact hardly ever see him doing anything but coin work!
Great review here – if anyone likes the ‘Ladies’ Looking Glass’ from the ‘Royal Road to Card Magic’ (which goes back to the Robert-Houdin book, ‘The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic’), this would be an excellent source of information.
I hope the family is well, and until next time…
J
@Dr.J – I know . . . people have been coming out of the woodwork to tell me how wrong I am about the Roth/Card thang. Whew . . . so much for a simple example to prove a point. 🙂
As of the Ladies Looking Glass, Michael Vincent has a nice handling of that in Elegant Deceptions DVD set. This handling really eliminates almost everything I hate about this effect. If I ever did this effect, I’d do the version on the Vincent DVD.
I agree – the Michael Vincent handling is superb.
For the benefit of readers, that can be found on The Classic Magic of Michael Vincent Volume III, Elegant Deceptions. That handling could easily benefit from using some of the reveals from this project, though hardly necessary.
@Dr. J . . . Yep . . . I put a link in my post above.
I’m curious as to why you hate this plot?
@James – The plot never really “spoke” to me. I have no real reason. Also, just about everyone I’ve ever seen perform it did it very poorly. The presentation was like an auctioneer rambling on about every move that was being made. It always seemed like mindless palaver. So from the beginning of my exposure to it, it was always done terribly, so I started off with a bad taste in my mouth. Then after getting past that, I still just never felt like it spoke to me.
From a technical standpoint, I felt there was too much non-stuff happening (i.e, the long selection and control process) before any magic happened. When I saw Michael Vincent’s handling of it, I was very impressed, and I felt he gave it a little bit of meaning. It made me like the plot a little bit. If I ever performed it, I would do his version.
Mr. Stone,
I appreciate your reviews. I have also had mixed feelings about the plot. It is a hybrid plot that says, “I know what card you selected and shuffled back in to the deck.” It also says, “I can find your card in this face-down deck and do all kinds of things with it.” And both of these things are shown quite quickly with multiple people. As such, it leaves a lot of entertainment value on the table in my never humble opinion. A good mentalist can have ONE person select one card and shuffle it back in, and then find it by reading the person’s thoughts. Done properly, it would also seem impossible.
A good magician could have ONE card selected shuffled back and then have it appear in his pocket or any number of places, and that can be very entertaining as we all know. But when you do all of those things together and with multiple people it is so quick and so overwhelming to the audience that the entertainment value of each component is diminished. There is no time to wonder, “How did he know my card?” Etc. So much of the potential is lost, (bad pun warning) in the shuffle.
It just seems like the magic and mentalism that I most appreciate is the opposite; where a person can take a simple card force or a glimpse and make it into a miracle, make something big from something very little. As presented, it seems to me that the MCR is somewhat the opposite.
I have worked out a solution that overcomes most of my objections to the plot and am considering the DVD reviewed here and as well as the MRD deck. Let me know if you are interested. My reasons for not liking the plot may not have resonated with your reasons.
R. L. F.
@R.L.F. – If I may, I’d like to offer my thoughts on your comments and question. While I adore and perform the multiple selection routine regularly, I absolutely agree with what you said about emphasizing the impossibility of a single effect. I saw Michael Weber lecture last year and he talked about an ideal magic show consisting of a single effect, and even shared that at times he does in fact perform a single effect in his stage shows for high paying clients. There are several routines I’m currently working on that conform to that approach, which magnify and focus on the impossibility of a single event.
And…
I believe the nature of magic as a performance art is that it should be an expression of the performer. Part of that expression is a choice as to what kind of experience you wish the audience to have. Further, there are many types of valid experiences one can share, including the single, shocking, impossible moment you are speaking of. For myself, while I do include those types of moments in my performances (and I’d like to think some of the revelations I use in the multiple selection echo this level of astonishment), I also want my audiences to have a variety of experiences, so that my show has texture: peaks and valleys, laughter and astonishment.
Bringing the conversation back to the multiple selection, one of the things I love about the effect (at least when I do it) is the build, spectacle and energy that it creates in performance. At the end, when the final card is produced, the audience generally bursts into applause. I don’t say this to brag, but because this is a great way to end a set (not the only way, but a great way). It’s absolutely as valid to end on a deep note of mystery, but, for me, I like the deep note of mystery in the middle and to end with spectacle and energy. But that’s my style and my choice.
At the same time, I’m always interested in other approaches, and I know that Paul Vigil just released a book that includes his approach to the multiple selection. According to the ad copy, it sounds like it conforms more to the approach you discuss. I’d love to read it, but at $200 it’s not in my current magic budget.
James,
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. And I agree with you on most every point. One thing that there is no doubt about is that the Multiple revelation gets great reactions.
But we need to be a bit careful here and I wish I had more science to back me up. Some time ago, I watched a movie that I thought was very, very good. The twist at the end caught me off guard. As the credits began to roll, I would have given the movie 4 out 5 of stars . But in the coming hours and days, however I realized that that the twist at the end, actually made what had happened previous implausible. Within a day or so, I dropped my rating to 2 of 4. Indeed, I subsequently saw a review of the movie which mentioned ‘internal inconsistencies’ as the movies biggest problem.
I began to wonder how many people caught up in the magic show, and feeding off the reactions around them, also react but then, after thinking about what they saw, might, like me and the movie, revise their ratings downward at a later time. Would they want to see the entertainer again, or recommend him for some other function? In other words, judging immediate reactions might not tell the whole story about the perceived quality of an act or a performance.
Mystery is known to nag at people’s minds and they will think about what they saw afterwards. We want the great reaction to hold up long after the show, but my sense is that, with the MCR, there is so much happening that they give up because there are so many different things happening. Again, this is theory based on personal observation and some psychological research results.
The approach I am leaning toward is to, 1) eliminate the mentalism aspect of the effect. 2) To do the basic components of the MCR one person at a time earlier in the act. A memory demonstration, ACAAN types of effects. Then card location/card to impossible location effects. Then the finale would combine these talents for multiple people, greatly increasing the perceived level of difficulty. A number of guests would select cards, which are mixed back into the deck. The entertainer would then ‘memorize’ the deck. Each guest would call out his or her card, the entertainer, knowing where the card is from memory, would then produce each one in order in a magical way which look exactly like the MCR’s do now, except the guest would understand and appreciate the components and the skill involved. Juzt my opinion, of course.
RLF
@RLF – Thanks again for the post. I’m enjoying this discussion, and I really appreciate the fact that it’s an intelligent and thoughtful debate, and not a flame/hate war. I had an opposite experience with a movie once. It was the Bram Stoker’s Dracula that came out in 1992 . . . the one with Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves. At the end of the movie I was disappointed. I was expecting a scary/horror film. My “rating” was low. However, as time passed and I thought about the movie, I began to realize that it was a beautiful and amazing love story. The more I thought about it, the more I loved it. It just took me some time to see it for what it really is.
Like you, I think a magic show should be similar. You certainly don’t want them to not be happy at the end of the show, but you do want them to like it more and more as they think about it more and more. One of my favorite effects to do is Max Maven’s B’WAVE. I build it up as an exercise in free will, but I make it clear to them that no matter what the outcome, they will “leave tonight wondering, ‘what if I’d said a different color or different suit, etc.'”
Without fail, at the end when I reveal the Queen, they always say it: “what if I had said ‘heart’ (or whatever).” I always respond by saying, “I told you that you’d ask that, and you’re going to continue asking yourself that question for the rest of your life.” Of course they won’t think about the rest of their life, but when I say that, they think about it longer.
Magic should be more memorable the more you think about it, not less. And I think you make a good point that the MCR may have the opposite effect. However, it may also just make the show as a whole more memorable because of how much fun everyone had as the revelations build.
I imagine doing it like John Archer does his magic square. Each revelation becomes more and more intense and energetic and even emotional, and by the end of the final part of the square that adds up to 43 (or whatever number), the audience is practically on their feet cheering the triumphant conquering of the “elusive magic square.” I can see an MCR playing like this in the hands of the right performer . . . probably not me, but somebody.
J
@James – Thanks for the comment brother. That’s the best argument I’ve heard for the MCR plot. I definitely agree with the idea of a textured show. My close up act has a Rubik’s cube solve — just me showing off that I can do it in 30 ish seconds. It has a poker routine. It has a fire/flash paper effect. There’s an ESP card effect, a creepy Tarot card thing, and more. It’s quite a mix of material. I think, using your argument above, that if you’re going to use the MCR that a closer (or toward the end) is a better place for it.
I can definitely see it as the sort of cap for the show . . . the release of a bunch of (seemingly) pent up energy. It’s kind of like a drum solo in concert. It’s less “music” but more “show off” how awesome of a drummer I am. I like the MCR for that. Like the drum solo, it’s a little bit musical (or in the case of MCR, magical), but it’s not “Music” per se (or magic per se). It’s more just a fun break. I like it brother. Thanks for sharing.
As for Vigil, he’s actually from here where I live (Salt Lake City). He was just here during the holiday’s, but I wasn’t able to meet up with him. Next time he’s in town, I’ll try to meet up with him and see if he’ll spare a review copy of the book. 🙂
@RLF – Thanks for the comment. I mentioned that the plot never “spoke” to me. I never knew why. But after reading your comment, I’ve realized that you were able to put into words what I’ve been feeling/thinking about the plot. Thanks for the clarity. I’d love to see what you’ve come up with if you’re willing to share. Thanks!
Jeffro
P.S. – feel free to be less formal than “Mr. Stone” with me. 🙂
Jeff,
Glad I was able to help. I truly appreciate your reviews. I put me thoughts in the above post before I saw your reply!
Ryan
I certainly can understand a plot not speaking to you. And I agree, the selection process can be slow and uninteresting. I haven’t see Michael Vincent’s handling, and my approach doesn’t have much to it presentation-wise, but the reactions I get when performing it are hard to beat. Which is why I was curious as to why you didn’t like the plot. I’ll be sure to check out Michael Vincent’s version.
@James – Over the years, I’ve had routines in my repertoire that got a great response, but I eventually got rid of them because I didn’t enjoy them. I’m picky, I know, but I want material that both my audience and I enjoy. It makes for a painful process to find material for sure.
@Jeff – Luckily (for me) I LOVE performing the multiple selection. (Can’t stand the Ambitious Card, though) And I’m definitely of the mindset that I need to love the effect as well as the audience. And while I agree it can be painful, I think the end result is worth it and sets the performance apart.
@James – I love these discussions here on the site. It keeps things fun and gives everyone a reason to come back and chat. I’m with you on Ambitious Card as well. It’s one of those ones I mentioned that I used to do because the audience loved it, but I never liked it. Regarding the Wilson handling, it seems like I remember David Regal having a similar idea where he found all the Hearts and placed them on the table as he found them, but at the end when he turned them over they were all Spades . . . or something like that. It was on the Tricks, More Tricks, Enough With The Tricks DVD set.
While I too enjoyed the Michael Vincent handling, I would also recommend checking out the ‘Revelation in Spades’ by Gregory Wilson from his ‘Card Stunts’ video – same impact possibilities without any selecting/returning at all.
@Dr. J. – Yep. I remember that. I do like that idea for sure. It certainly cuts out the worst part of that plot.
@Jeff and @Dr. J. – I’ve seen Gregory Wilson’s version and while I agree that it does have the benefit of skipping the selection phase, the plot of finding all the spades left me a bit cold. I understand this is an objective opinion, but I feel like finding a person’s selection on demand (as I present the effect) seems more personal. He does have some lovely revelations, though.
All,
There is also some interesting twists on the MCR on the Steve Valentine Lecture DVD and Doc Eason has Fusillade which , and he is quite outspoken about the effectiveness of this, he memorizes all of the names of the people who made selections and deals with them one on one by name when the revelation part comes.
Jeff,
I like B’wave too..and that line is one I am going to steal from you! I normally just say something like, “Then I would be holding the wrong card here, we all would have wasted about three minutes of our lives, and i would have looked bad…so thank you for naming the card that you did…” It basically confirms their ‘free’ choice.
My problem with B’Wave, especially in more casual circumstances, is that people want to look at the cards. I have since come up with a version that uses regular playing cards that are completely examinable. It is a matter of situation which one I use. The original has more surprises, but when I am standing right there in an intimate situation with the cards, and they want to see them, I like to be able to feign not wanting to and then let them examine everything.
RLF
Why had I not thought of the Doc Eason version?! I always use names of people in my audience, whether they are participating or just spectating. That kind of thing gets you remembered because you can be David Coppertone and doing the best magic in the world. They will always remember you because you remember their name, even if you only see them for a short time and only once.
That is one of the many reasons why Doc is so successful, on top of his great skill, humor, wit and personality.
All that being said, ‘Fusillade’ is not the most energetic version of MCR out there, but it does connect with each person on an individual basis, while at the same time still engaging everyone else. That ‘connecting’ aspect is what makes it work.
@Jeff: I would love to see what you come up with!
J
@Dr. J – In my reply to RLF, I forgot to comment on Doc Eason’s version. No doubt that using the names makes any effect a little bit better. I can certainly see MCR being an audience bonding effect . . . not so much about the magic, but the audience connection. There’s nothing wrong with that.
As for my MCR idea, it’s nothing revolutionary, but it does solve the problems I have with the effect. I’ll be posting it soon.
@RLF – Feel free to steal the line. I “stole” the presentational premise from another Maven effect on the Multiplicity DVD. Regarding handing them out, I’ve never had them ask, even in casual settings. I had at one point considered putting a QH in my left pocket and QD in my right. Then when I reveal the Queen in the packet, I put it in the pocket that has the dup of the card they named. But I decided not to bother with it.
This is a great discussion folks and this is how all discussion on magic should be. Informative, opinionated yet cordial. 🙂
One point I see in the discussion of building up more and more energy towards the end of any effect (especially the multiple card revelation). I suspect that that very thing, besides the engagement and interaction with the whole audience during the selection/returning process, is part of why Jeff likes the Michael Vincent handling. He starts revealing one at a time, then goes to two, picking up more speed the closer he gets to the end, and then BAM! A shower of cards spray out of his hands and when the pasteboard dust settles, there he is with two cards, on in each hand. Did he get them? One card revealed and he got it. A pause. Suspense. Boom – got the last one too!
I occasionally do the ‘Ladies’ Looking Glass’ but not often. I like the effect but am not ‘in love’ with it. I put it in, I take it out. In a way, I have a love/hate relationship with the ‘time’ the whole thing takes in the way that Eugene Burger has his love/hate relationship with sponge balls. At the end of the day, while you should always enjoy doing the effects you do at least to some degree, as a magician you must be aware of what your audiences like and what is received well, and what is not.
@Dr. J. – This discussion has inspired an idea for a possible routine/handling of MCR. I’ll have to toy around with it and possibly write it up.
@Jeff: I had also played around with different ways to make the “B’Wave” selection examinable from Himber wallets to the L/R pocket solution you named and like you, I never found it necessary so I stopped. I started thinking of doing that without a reason for it because I have never been asked to let anyone see all the cards.
The other reason I stopped doing the wallet/pocket switch thing is because I started using the ‘Fake Deck’ concept of Brother John Hamman, something I still use to this very day.
@Dr. J. – I never even tested the idea. I just thought about it and decided to never do it. I’ve never been asked to see the cards. I’m not familiar with Hamman thing.
@Jeff & Dr. J.,
I have only been asked once or twice, but I know for everyone who asks, there are many more who are thinking about it, especially later on as we have discussed. It has been my opinion that when they see blank cards, they are cued to think that something is out of the ordinary with these cards. Alain Nu had a manuscript called “Nu Wave” or something like that, which also used ordinary cards. I have not seen it.
Regardless, I now have a follow up effect of similar theme which works better with regular cards. I am curious about the Hamman thing.
@Jeff,
I can steal anything I want from you? Too bad we don’t live in closer proximity; you review more than I can buy!
RLF
@RLF – If I post it in a public place, feel free to “steal” it . . . unless I say otherwise when I post it. 🙂
I’m in Utah; where are you?
Jeff,
I am in Pennsylvania, kingdom of snow and ice!
RLF
@RLF – We used to live in New London, CT about 20 years ago. I love the north east.
@Jeff,
I know exactly where New London is. And i do like four seasons. But winter does wear sometimes!
To the subject, Dr. J mentioned Eugene Burger and his love/hate relationship with sponge balls. Well before I heard Eugene’s remarks and before even contemplated the MCR, I also went through the same thing with sponge balls and I am talking here about sponge balls for adults. To me, when the sequence ended with a guest having fifteen red balls in her hand, the reactions are indeed great. But after the WOW, the default explanation is that these red balls must compress to a degree that the audience did not think possible and that played a big role. She was obviously holding this many balls without even knowing it. Once these properties of the balls are realized, much of the rest of the routine can be explained away, “If they compress that small he could do about anything with them.”
I looked at three ball routines and found them also very entertaining…and these are with solid balls. I felt that if I primarily deal with the sponge balls as in solid ball routines (Three ball routines) / cups and balls/chop cup routines etc.) , which are also great magic, with sponge balls, I could HIDE the compression properties of the sponge balls until those special moments when another ball appears in a guest’s hand (which cannot be done with solid balls) and it would be credible with only two balls. Of course this primarily would require that Burger’s grand finale of fifteen or twenty balls is eliminated.
Back to the MCR and, indeed, any magic/mentalism, Luke Jermay, early in 3510 wrote about his popular blindfold routine which he loved but felt that he could do more with it. He played around with other additions, then had a moment of insight: the routine did not need more; it had five sequences too much already. With some pain, he cut back and concentrated on one drawing dupe sequence. He wrote that the cuts increased the impact. In his personal rules that he applies to routines, he writes first about “Clarity” for the audience. He describes giving the audience a presentational hook so that the audience can interpret what is happening and it must involve only one skill at any time. The effect should demonstrate one skill and be as easy as possible for the audience to watch and follow. Sage advice I think,
RLF
@RLF – Good advice indeed. In my life in general, my mantra is “seek clarity.” I try to incorporate that into my magic. It ain’t easy folks, but it’s worth it when it happens. 🙂