Monthly Update #17 (May 2024)
Two classic card tricks and magical wisdom from Al Baker.
Welcome to the May update from Marty’s Magic Ruseletter. This month, I’ve been exploring two classic card plots: the “Chicago Opener” and “The Four Burglars”.
This month, I anaylsed the practical strengths and weaknesses of the venerable “Chicago Opener” card trick in a new blog post (I mentioned this in last month’s update). Despite its widespread popularity, this routine has some structural flaws that top magicians like Eugene Burger felt detracted from the deception. In the detailed article, I examine these critiques, explore some excellent variations, and see how “obsessing over the details” can elevate the effect.
In the latest edition of Corrupting the Classics, I’ve written about the historical significance of “The Four Burglars”, a story plot with roots going back over 400 years. You’ll learn multiple modern handlings of this entertaining card mystery, including my personal handling of the plot, “Inside Job”, which extends the trick by adding a surprise ending to proceedings.
Rounding out this issue are insights from top magical thinker Al Baker, performance videos dissecting the strengths and weaknesses of “Chicago Opener” from a different perspective other than mine, and links to top instructional videos on both featured plots. Get ready to immerse yourself in the critical details that separate the ordinary from the extraordinary in magic! 😉
New on MBOT: Chicago Opener Sucks!
Earlier this month, I wrote a detailed blog post inspired by Eugene Burger’s somewhat controversial opinion of the card trick known as the “Chicago Opener” or “Red Hot Mama”. Despite being from Chicago, Eugene didn't hold the trick in high regard.
In the article, I analyse the structure of the routine and explore the trick’s history, along with various handlings by different magicians, and criticisms from respected performers, such as Eugene Burger, Tom Stone and Pop Haydn. I also examine the three main identified weaknesses: the timing of the double lift, the second phase which potentially exposes the method used during the first phase, and the inconsistent selection procedures.
I think it is useful to anaylse the strengths and weaknesses of a trick in this way because it helps us strengthen and improve our own magic. For the record, I do think “Chicago Opener” is a good trick, but only when it is acompanied by a well-thought out presentation.
After finishing the article, I contacted Larry Hass, who has authored several books on Eugene and his magic, to inquire about his friend’s thoughts on the trick. Larry mentioned that Eugene preferred not to impose strict rules on others. In a less assertive mood, he would likely say, “If it works for you and you’re truly fooling people with it, GREAT!” Larry also mentioned that we should verify that this is indeed the case, as everyone is susceptible to self-deception regarding their own sleight of hand.
Eugene possessed a keen eye for the art of deception. He believed that the Hindu Shuffle Force was not entirely fooling, and that some people can see right through it (although I use the force, he’s right that it doesn’t fool everyone). This alone was enough for him to dismiss the routine. Moreover, the prospect of performing a double lift under extreme heat was a deal-breaker for him. Hence, it’s safe to conclude that Eugene held a rather critical view of the “Chicago Opener” routine on multiple fronts (even though he didn’t actually declare that it lierally sucked). And, although he could have fixed all of these issues, he thought that there were stronger tricks more worthy of performance, especially ones that could function as openers (such as his “Signed Card in Wallet”).
In our email exchange, Larry also made an important point. He mentioned that, unlike other art forms, there isn’t a culture of “magic criticism” in our community. If we aim to elevate magic to the status of art, we need to engage in the critical evaluation of magic tricks. This is one of the major drivers of my blog and this newsletter.
I also wrote another short blog post on the “Chicago Opener”, which touches on the overused “Magician in Trouble” plot and links to another excellent variation called “Muttenz-Chicago Opener” by Swiss card expert, Roberto Giobbi.
Rudy Tinoco, the man behind The Magician’s Forum, created a video response to my blog article. He then experimented with some changes to his handling of the “Chicago Opener” and recorded another performance video. It’s very satisfying when people find my articles helpful in some way, and Randy went above and beyond with these two videos. I’m now thinking about how I can incorporate some of his excellent ideas into my pirate-inspired “X Marks the Spot” presentation (using the traditional handling or Pop Haydn’s “Chicago Surprise” if the situation is suitable). Thanks, Rudy!
Start Obsessing Over the Details!
When I write such a long, detailed article critiquing a classic card trick, I know some magicians will tell me to “stop obsessing over the details”. Equally, when I’m discussing the finer points of a magic trick like “Chicago Opener” in an online forum, I expect to be accused of “overthinking” or “thinking like a magician”. Sure, “Chicago Opener” is a good trick that gets great reactions. However, that doesn’t mean the trick is perfect; it has structural weaknesses that need addressing if you want the effect to be as strong as possible.
In fact, I think more magicians should obsess over the details. To me, this isn’t a negative, so long as it doesn’t stop you from performing. This idea echoes a popular quote, usually phrased as “Magicians stop thinking too soon”, usually misattributed to Dai Vernon. The magician who promoted this idea was Al Baker (1874-1951), a professional magician admired by his peers, Vernon included, and the inventor of many marketed tricks. His dry sense of humour, tongue-in-cheek approach, and advice to other magicians are timeless. (Incidentally, Al Baker was also one of Eugene Burger’s favourite magical thinkers.)
Here’s the original quote in full (from the pages of The Sphinx):
We must never forget that the details of presentation are what make a trick. And study and thought brings us those details. If you have a trick you like but never do because of some weak or unnatural or illogical part, don't lay it aside—just begin thinking. What I mean is thinking about that part. You will be surprised how a brilliant idea will crop up and you will be surprised even more that you hadn't thought of it before. The usual trouble is that we don't bother to think long enough or hard enough.1
Corrupting the Classics: The Four Burglars
This month, I also finished a detailed article on the well-known card trick, “The Four Burglars”. In it, I teach multiple ways to perform this classic story-based card trick, including my extended variation called “Inside Job”.
🔒 Corrupting the Classics: The Four Burglars
I also share “The Bungling Burglars”, another approach to the plot based on a trick popular in Elizabethan England and published in 1591! This article and the two trick tutorials on my blog are exclusive to paid subscribers.
Three Videos Worth Watching
Here’s another trio of videos that I think are worth watching.
Michael Ammar Teaches Red Hot Mama
Here’s a recent video of Michael Ammar discussing and teaching his approach to “Red Hot Mama”. If you're familiar with the handling he taught all those years ago on the Easy to Master Card Miracles series, then you’ll still learn something new. Michael has evolved his approach to this trick over the years and explains how to perform it with any named card.
Doug Conn Teaches Rising Crime by Daryl
Here’s one of the very best variations of “The Four Burglars” taught by one of the best magicians on YouTube.
The 4 Bank Robbers by Tom Matriq
And finally, here’s another interesting variation of “The Four Burglars”, with a cool kicker ending, from Tom Matriq who, like Doug Conn, also has a great YouTube channel aimed at magicians.
That’s all for this month. I hope you have fun with these classic card tricks.
Yours Magically,
Marty
Al Baker, “What Makes a Trick,” The Sphinx, Vol. 40, No. 1 (March 1941): 28.