Plerophoria et al.

[praetoritevong]

Hey guys, a few random questions, starting with, as the title suggests, Derren Brown's Plerophoria effect...

a) Purely out of interest, I read that there was a slightly difference between the Pure Effect and the Derren Brown Lecture DVD descriptions of this effect, and I was wondering if anyone knew what they were exactly (I have access to one but not the other)?

b) I have not actually tried the effect yet, but does anyone here perform it, and if so, in what context have you performed it? It's quite a powerful thing, though obviously not for regular Close-up or anything..

c) Regarding the effect Smoke: I do not have the gimmick required for the method that is given, and don't particularly feel like buying it soon. In your opinion, how would substituting the gimmick with a mental card force (+ deck without forced card, then rest of routine as described) play out?

 

[DLeerium]

Hey Guang, regarding Plerophoria, I have access to both sources, and I cannot find many differences between the book and the lecture. When I first saw the method after the performance I was flabbergasted because I thought he used a marked deck.

I have performed it a few times with my own handling, however I stopped performing it because I did not find a good situation to perform it in + I did not have the gimmick lol. I believe the audience who best suits this effect would we ones that accepts the idea of mentalism and mental manipulation, because the effect indeed does lack the visual appeal. However if performed correctly the effect itself is indeed powerful.

For smoke, the deck itself can be bought from your local magic shop (Hey Presto for us..costs 50 bucks). I do not perform smoke because I don't smoke myself, but if you were to find a substitute for the deck, may I recommend a mental card force (like the one I did on you), or maybe even a Kriss cross force. I think both these forces preserve the mental and free-choice nature of the effect, compared to traditional forces such as a riffle force. The disadvantage of this method compared to the gimmicked version is that there is a possibility that it will fail, while the gimmicked version is surefire.

-DL

 

[praetoritevong]

Hey man,

Well that's the thing about Plerophoria it really doesn't sound like a particularly... practical effect per se that could be used much at all. Perhaps at a coffee table following some mentalism effects and what have yous, but yeah... It'd be good as a stage effect, if I actually performed on stage... If I'm not gonna use it though, I can't be bothered you know, and I can't really see myself using it but I was just wondering if I was missing something. Kinda like something else I was just looking at, Stockman's Poetry Reading... I'm not really a coffee shop person, though I could definitely see myself making an exception for that - even combining it with Lee Asher's "Starbucks solution" and some flourishing... But I digress..

I don't smoke either and hence have never used it, but I've been thinking of stealing just like an empty pack of Dad's, plus one cigarette (he should smoke less anyway haha)... I wish Hey Presto would burn, other than that, yeah a mental card force is what I was thinking of using... You should see my want list, it's fairly massive as it is... @.@ If the force doesn't work, move on, don't perform Smoke, was my reasoning... Just take their card and do an ACR or something. If it does, it's a good leadup.

 

[datskanars]

About smoke

I HAVE recently PERFORMED this effect at a friends' party and i have also performed it in a couple of other situations.. I dont like using a gimmicked deck either so i found two other ways that can accomplish the desired effect.
1) i use a psycological force , then when spreading the cards i make sure that the force card is seen more than the other cards.close the spread, then i simply search the deck faces towards me and put the force card on the bottom. then i cop it away.
2) i classic force the card,control it to the bottom and cop it away.

both methods are great in my opinion and they have both worked for me . the psychological force combined with spreading the cards a little more where the force card is not 100% accurate but it has never let me down.both ways are great
p.s i dont smoke either i just pretend to when performing smoke
hope that helped.

 

[praetoritevong]

Hey datskanars, thanks for the reply...

Based on Damian's and my own reasoning I would tend to go for a psychological type force over the classic. An interesting thing I just thought of, to both of you, is that in Pure Effect Derren makes a point of telling them to "burn" the image in their mind, which enforces that they did in fact see the card in the deck. Whilst my original idea involved just a mental force as described by DLeerium, this does not allow them to see the card in the deck... Just a thought, I guess I should just try them...

And yeah dats, I was thinking the same thing about faking a cigarette - how does this sounds? Bring out the cigarette while they look for their card in the deck à la The Devil's Picturebook, and put in mouth without lighting. Switch for gimmick after establishing cigarette, pretending to fumble for lighter... Cig doesn't ever have to be lit, only registered that it's there, people should assume that it was lit simply because no-one like eats a cig or anything...

 

[urban entropy]

Smoke subtly implies that you have been 'smoking' the burnt card - as the card should be burned - the entire time.

By 'burning the image of the card' into their mind you are also reinforcing this subtle impression.

The card that they freely glimpsed in a tabled, ribbon spread deck, was never there in the first place. You overtly lead them to 'see' that card when it was never there.

Hard hitting and virtually self working. To not use the deck that Brown recommends changes the effect without personalizing it and just ruins what he created.

Basically, you won't be performing the same effect with the same result. using a classic force, or a psychological force, though effective, yields different results and a different effect. Smoke is based on them having a completely free glimpse of a card, and then you reading their body language and other physiological clues - thus creating a powerful effect and red herring to the method all at the same time.

My advice, avoid changing the method as much as you can. Get the gimmicked deck as it is now built in a red-backed bicycle form and is a hugely valuble mentalism tool in it's own right.

I wouldn't trade that deck for 10 gaffed decks. It's just a solid SOLID tool in mentalism with cards.

urban

 

[blahblah]

you can make them pretend like they have seen the card even if the card isnt their...

lets say youve just phsco forced the QH, as the set up just get the QD and put in the middle of some hearts, then when you spread the deck close the spread about three quaters of a second after you get the the QD, odds are that they see the queen of hearts (its safer if you riffle the cards)... that would make the trick just as good as derrens version without gaffs or whatever, and its almost improputu.

 

[urban entropy]

you can make them pretend like they have seen the card even if the card isnt their...

What?

lets say youve just phsco forced the QH, as the set up just get the QD and put in the middle of some hearts, then when you spread the deck close the spread about three quaters of a second after you get the the QD, odds are that they see the queen of hearts (its safer if you riffle the cards)...

Or you could just put the Queen of Hearts in a back palm position, face up so the spectators can see it whilst you dribble the deck. Thus you imply that they should pick that card without saying anything. It's safer........

that would make the trick just as good as derrens version without gaffs or whatever, and its almost improputu.

That's like saying 'use Scotch tape for Torn, or for Mathieu B's TnR makes it better and virtually impromtu"

It's not better than Brown's; not even in the same game as Brown's, NOT even close to the same world as Brown's.

Ridiculous suggestion with a ridiculous premise.

urban

 

[praetoritevong]

Some interesting thoughts urban, you do make good points - it's almost 4AM here though so yeah it'll hit me in a few hours... At least I'll always have Zamiel's Rose to keep Thanks for your thoughts

 

[urban entropy]

Your welcome.

I'll add, that I don't smoke either so I have two different reveals for the actual card. Both utilize the cigarette.

One is a lit cigarette, I just choose a venue where I can smoke and set up accordingly - also I don't inhale. The other is where I find out I can't smoke - almost as a gag though it's just a bit of comedy - and then I just stick the unlit cigarette in my ear. Once I do the reveal there it is effective and funny.

The unlit version is not near as good though so I definitely save it as much as possible for the lit version.

urban

 

[blahblah]

oh well, its just an idea that might work...

well to me anyway it sounds as though it would be the same effect as brown because

a-they think of a card and you tell them what it is

b-the card disappears

c-the cigerrette (sp.) turns out to be the same card.

or thats the effect isnt it?

 

[urban entropy]

or thats the effect isnt it?

In it's basic form yes, however by changing the entire method you change the resulting effect. This is not always the case however with this effect it is.

As soon as you physically force a card: riffle, classic et al, you change the impact on the audience. Same goes with a pyschologica force.

a) noone hits 100% of the time
b) the effect as built by Brown is virtually fool proof.

To adapt the patter, presentation - that is how you change it to make it yours. Leave the method as is.

urban

 

[blahblah]

I dont actually perform the effect but it just seems a easier version, so I dont know how it would play.

but to me it seemed good because backed up with a good psycho force it would be pretty fool proof, and also quite amazing...

 

[urban entropy]

I dont actually perform the effect but it just seems a easier version, so I dont know how it would play.

In that case are you familier with how Smoke works at all? Are you familier with Brown's released material?

but to me it seemed good because backed up with a good psycho force it would be pretty fool proof, and also quite amazing...

No psychological force is 100%. NOT ONE. It just doesn't work that way. You can hit often, but never 100%.

The method to Smoke allows for a red herring psychological effect because the idea is that you forced the spectator to see a card that was never there in the first place, and then that 'thought of' card appears to be the cigarette you were smoking the whole time.

To speculate on 'improved' methods is .........well..........stupid, as Derren Brown's workings hardly need to be changed. His method is simple and effective.

urban

 

[Sean_Raf]

No psychological force is 100%. NOT ONE. It just doesn't work that way. You can hit often, but never 100%.

Unless you're Derren Brown, right? He's crazy.

Personally I don't think you need to change how Smoke is performed (although might I interject my own post to say we shouldn't be discussing this in this thread), the way it's structured is fine as it is. I won't go in-depth as Urban can do a far better job than I on that hehe.

Cheers,
- Sean

 

[urban entropy]

Unless you're Derren Brown, right? He's crazy.

In both of his books Derren stresses the idea of pushing magic to where it can fail. Meaning that if you are going for the psychological forces and you miss, sometimes that is a good thing as it only stresses your validity.

In Derren's lecture video - he gets a couple of forces wrong, which is great because you get to see a master at work when something doesn't go right. It's truly educational.

For those interested in a combination of the psychological work combined with cards - although not always actually using psychological stuff (which is incredible thinking and offers strong presentation opportunities) check out The Devil's Picturebook. Can Not Go Wrong.

urban

 

[Sean_Raf]

Very true. I need to pick that Lecture DVD up, I hear nothing but good things...

Also agree on the Devil's Picturebook, not just for the material but also the way he structures things and the thinking process that goes into them. Very clever.

- Sean

 

[praetoritevong]

Two words, Pure Effect. I took no effects from that but the thinking, I have about ten pages of notes on, just ridiculous...

The only thing to add though is that it's quite possible to make the specs think you've been smoking without actually doing so (since I have no intention of picking up smoking for the sake of this effect). Other than that, fair enough.

 

[blahblah]

I am familiar with his stuff, I have tricks of the mind (awsome book) and im borowing pure effect from the libary, what I meant with my "version" is that you have the psycho force, and then when your spreading the deck you help to plant the image, and the queen of hearts is thourght of almost automaticly when a girl thinks of a card, and the spread thing would help that...

I know I sound like a right git when talking about the effect but (im not trying to an arse here) effects can be imroved, im not saying I improved it but that by bouncing ideas around you could probabbly think of a way to improve it.

dont get me wrong though, derren brown is by far (in my opinion) the best mentalist/magician in the world...

I agree though, I didnt take any effects from the book, but I took ideas (and a sleight) and with the ideas have made a pscho force, (yay)

and I love his ideas on mentalism and how to make it better and im gonna try and use it alot.