Bank Night Plots

Over the years there have been many different varieties of the "Bank Night" theme. There are some really dumb ones (e.g. Dan Harlan's from his "Packs Small, Plays Big Mentalism Show") and there are some great ones. My particular favorite, which I am sure will be a huge suprise to anyone who reads this blog, is from Richard Osterlind.

For those who don't know Osterlind's version, I will briefly describe the effect. The mentalist comes on stage holding five manilla envelopes clearly marked one through five. He tells the audience that in one of the envelopes there is a 100 dollar bill and that four people in the audience will have an opportunity to win the money. Four spectators are asked to choose one envelope each. The choice is an absolutely free choice - any envelope may be chosen. At the end the menalist is left with one envelope and four spectators each have one envelope. The envelope that contains the money is always the one left in the mentalist's hands at the end of the effect (even after giving an audience member the opportunity to switch envelopes with him). The four audience members are not left empty handed. Instead, they each walk away with a scratch-off lotto ticket for a chance to win even more than the 100 dollars offered by Osterlind. I like this version for 3 main reasons.

First, the audience members that participate are left with something after the effect (the lotto tickets), thus removing the "Sucker" feeling to the routine. I am pretty sure that it is a universal feeling amongst mentalists that we shouldn't present effects as a challenge or that diminish our spectators. This is good advice because without spectators we would have no reason to perform at all. Osterlind does a good job of NOT making his effect a challenge to the audience.

Second, even though the spectators get something, they don't know this fact until the very end of the routine. To me, this adds suspense and excitement to the effect. In other versions, the performer goes out of his way to say that the spectators will all be winners. This hurts the effect. After all, if they are all going to get a prize why have them pick envelopes? Instead, you would just hand them the stuff and be on your way. However, with Osterlind's handling, the spectators only know about the prize money and not the lottery tickets so their thoughts are on picking the envelope with the money rather than just picking an envelope for some door prize. What is more suspenseful and entertaining: Wondering if one of the spectators will win a substantial amount of money by freely choosing any one of five envelopes OR Watching four people select envelopes that they already know are loaded with a prize?

Finally, I like Osterlind's overall handling of the effect. The method is simple and easy, which makes it one of those effects that you can concentrate on your performance rather than moves. You can have a lot of fun with this routine and there is a lot of room for comedy during the presentation.

In comparison, I have just recently watched a version of this effect called "Manilla Miracle" on the "Desert Brainstorm Series Vol. 2" DVD by Lee Earle and it was weak. Earle goes out of his way to tell the spectators that "All of the envelopes have something in them for you but one envelope contains something I don't want you to have" What the hell? Why say that? If you don't want them to have it then don't put it in the damn envelope to begin with. Not to mention the spectators have no idea what it is he has placed in the envelope. That doesn't build suspense, it builds confusion. In the end, all the envelopes are opened to reveal a scratch-off lotto ticket and the envelope not selected contains a lotto ticket and a $50 bill. The revelation is so magical and inspirational that you can almost hear the audience think, "oh, so thats what he didn't want us to have. Why'd he put it in the envelope to begin with then?" On a side note, Earles technical handling and method is pretty good and very interesting. The method and handling alone make the effect worth a look.

Another example of a Bank Night Plot that doesn't make sense to me is Dan Harlan's "Lotto Luck." In this version, four envelopes are used and handed out to four specatators. Then Harlan picks one spectator to be his partner and reassures the new found partner, "Its good that you are my partner because it is a sure thing. I never lose." At the end of this effect, Harlan's aforementioned words make no sense whatsoever. The other three spectators find Lotto Tickets in their envelopes and get to keep the tickets. Meanwhile, the one spectator who is partnered with Harlan opens her envelope to discover....Wait for it....let the suspense build... A one dollar bill! The exact amount it would cost to be buy a lotto ticket. Here is the kicker though, Harlan doesn't let the women keep the buck. So basically, everyone except the winner actually wins something while the actual winner gets nothing - Brilliant! I want to point out that Harlan's method is interesting and can be applied to many different things. It was just the presentation that I really didn't like.

I don't mean to pick on either Earle or Harlan. I like a lot of both of their works. However, I don't think they really put a lot of thought or effort into their Bank Night Routines. Both routines could be made to be much more entertaining with minimal effort.