Magic Review – Rainbow Cascade

Rainbow Cascade

This a review for the effect Rainbow Cascade, which was an early magic trick that I bought.

The Effect

A packet of four cards is shown front and back and is seen to have red backs and normal faces. A short series of effects are performed with the cards, and a surprising climax reached when each of the four cards is shown to have changed from its original form to glitter cards! (The plot sequence in which a card is turned face down and the others follow suit, was shown to Roy Walton by Gordon Bruce, however he uses a different technique.) The cards that you are left with at the end can be handled by the spectators if you so wish.

Cost

It’s currently £12.50 (I paid £8 when I bought it ages ago). It’s available at Davenports Magic in London, which is worth a visit if you are in that area anyway.

Difficulty

(1=easy to do, 2=No sleights, but not so easy, 3=Some sleights used,
4=Advanced sleights used, 5=Suitable for experienced magicians only)

This routine pulls up at a 4 I think, advanced sleights used. This trick uses the Elmsley Ghost Count, which I found initially very difficult to learn. It took me about two months to learn it.

A quick tip would be to practice with ordinary cards first. This way you don’t ruin the gimmicked ones and won’t have to buy another set.

Review

What really makes this trick work is that you are clearly showing the cards front and back throughout the routine. Throughout the routine the audience perceives all the cards to be normal cards. They never suspect the colourful ending, which is a surprise.

This is a close up packet trick with a lot going for it. The cards may be handled at the end, if you wish and the reset is very quick, although it must be done away from the audience. I also think that Rainbow Cascade would be a fun trick for children with maybe a little adaptation of the routine from standard playing card to character playing cards.

Overall

This is a nice application of the Elmsley Count, and the instructions include details on how to perform the count, so that’s another reason to buy Rainbow Cascade if you want to learn the Elmsley Count. I stopped doing this packet trick and in honesty, I don’t perform a lot of packet tricks, but I might get this one out again and see if I can come up with some new ideas or a place where I might perform it.

Sign up to our mailing list for access to exclusive content – just put your email address in the box below.



Card Tricks for Dogs

Mixing Comedy and Magic

Comedy and magic don’t mix. I’ll give you a few seconds to compose yourself, as I’m sure you’ve probably spilt all your cornflakes over your iPad, after reading that skinny first sentence (I don’t know what time of day this will be published, but cereal’s 24/7, baby!). Now I’ll tell you why you agree with me. If someone is laughing hysterically, I’m sure you’d appreciate that experiencing awe at that point is nigh on impossible. The same is true in reverse; if someone is awestruck, laughter is surely an impossibility. While comedy and magic are like oil and water on a fundamental level, they also complement each other perfectly. I’d even go so far as to say that an inherent thread of comedy runs through every great piece of theatre, be it heavy or light subject matter; shade without light is no darkness at all.

I’ll request that you forgive my blatant sensationalist opening line, but I had to get your attention somehow, right? Now on to the matter at hand. The paragraph on human physiology was hopefully not quite as painful to read as the traditional dissection of a joke – the classic line on this being, “no one likes it, and the frog dies” – but I trust somewhere in the back of your mind, your cerebral cortex might recognise it as common sense, or at least be worthy of that tag; analysing things like comedy always verges on the tedious and heavily dunks its milk chocolate digestive canary, down into the common sense pit of tea.

Do you need to sacrifice the funny for the magical?

If you’re like me, then you really only seek to be entertaining whilst avoiding playing to the lowest common denominator; you should never be something you’re not, because that waters down your originality and the thing bookers value most: a unique selling point. Having said that, there is a ‘but’, and it comes with two cheeks. The first, is that it is possible – and even desirable – to do both strong magic and comedy; is it bad that your audience might credit you with two skills instead of just one? Secondly, if you have a bad gig, or a bad audience – they do actually exist – then magic acts as a crutch, although I don’t think ‘crutch’ is the right word, perhaps ‘safety net’ would be more appropriate, or even ‘backup’. If your cutting satire of the Tory Government doesn’t sit well with your local Conservative Club gig, then at least their wedding ring was inside the walnut, which was inside the egg, which was inside the lemon. If the heart of your act is strong magic, then anything else becomes a bonus. At a fundamental level, though, the solution is the answer to a simple question: What do you want your audience to take away from your performance? There is no right or wrong answer, the only constant being that you strive to achieve your goal and succeed; most of the time, at least.

Magicians’ Blog is a place for discussion, so please leave a comment below and we will get back to you. Also please use the box in the left sidebar to sign up to our email newsletter.

written by Damon Conlan

Ben Earl: Trick Artist Review – Episode 1

Ben Earl: Trick Artist Review – Episode 1

In short, could do better. I’ve spoken to others about the show and some have said that they enjoyed it but they feel like the show has tried to copy Dynamo a little too much. I think that street magic (as started by David Blaine) has had a big influence on TV magic, but I don’t think that all magic has to be like that. Trick Artist didn’t really have a street magic feel to it, but it did have an urban, nitty gritty feel to it. I would like to see magic presented for what it is – magic, rather than something else.

I was also constantly annoyed about the crew getting in the shot. Was that another way to make the magic seem more real, to make people feel like they were there, to make the show seem a little rough.

The problem was that the show felt too rough I thought. A few ideas thrown together, a trick, then another, then another. I didn’t get a sense of anything tied together.

As for the cards across – I can imagine that meeting!

“Why don’t we do cards across?”

“I know, how about cars across!?”

“Excellent! Right, let’s go to lunch.”

Exciting but not very interesting.

The major flaw I found though was that the camera kept cutting. We know that Ben is an expert sleight of hand artist and a very good magician. As a magician myself, I wanted to see that, not have the camera cut away from the magic all the time. I’ve spoken to non-magicians and they felt there was something dodgy going on too. Cutting the shot doesn’t make the magic more impressive, it makes people think, “Hang on, what happened when… why am I looking at someone’s face now instead of the moment when you might be doing… Oh that’s when he did the sneaky bit, when they went for a five minute drive. He probably just asked them to give him three cards then.”

Those are my quick thoughts. I think the show may have suited a shorted format, maybe 30 minutes instead of an hour, but with all that said, I am looking forward to seeing the next shows in the series and I hope it improves.

Please feel free to put your thoughts in the comments section below.

Older posts «

Switch to our mobile site