Hi everyone,
In light of the recent discussion about Dan White's new television show, and Blaine's special a few weeks ago, I've decided to bring up this issue. Lately, it's been an issue that's been on my mind. I'm in the process of making a documentary, and included in it will be several of my performances. Upon completion, I hope to share the film on various media, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and possibly on my local public access station.
Many magicians, such as Richard Kaufman and Michael Weber to name a few, have gone on the record to say that magic should not be done for a camera. This belief is supported by the claim that on television, magic is flattened out, and the dynamicy and audience connection of the performance is lost almost entirely. This is a claim that for the most part I tend to agree with. In fact it seems to me like live magic, and magic for the camera are almost two different arts completely. However, as television and Youtube have become popular places for magic to be viewed, one must consider taking advantage of the opportunities that can arise from publicizing your performances on these media. Because I have a passion for filmmaking, and a passion for magic, I've decided to combine them. So I have been doing a lot of filming of my live performances.
As I look over the footage on my computer, I can't help but think of the annoying and inevitable ten year old boy that will hypothetically view my film, watch the effects, rewind, dissect them, rewind, rewind, and rewind until he figures it out. I can't help but think that said boy will feel so special about cracking the secret to an effect, that he will post the solution in the comments, thus spoiling the experience for the other viewers. Or worse, he could make a video of his own, that demonstrates the secret to the effect in its entirety (Which, believe it or not, I'm witnessing more and more. As an aside, when I first watched Collins Keys' presentation of Booked by Steve Valentine on America's Got Talent, I was surprised to see that one of the suggested videos on the side was a video that exposed every aspect of his performance in its entirety. Not only did this expose Keys' presentation of the effect, it also cracked open the general principle behind Steve Valentine's incredible effect). Because I have the respect that I do for magic, and it's mysteries, I can't help but feel disheartened when I see these exposure videos, and also can't help to think that it could happen to me-- Or anyone who performs magic on YouTube for that matter.
The other reason that magicians resent filming magic is for the simple reason that psychology doesn't work on a camera. Misdirection doesn't work on a camera. Many subtleties may not even work on camera. But they sure as hell work for a live audience! But the thing is, is psychology, misdirection, subtleties, etc.. can all be undone when the magic is done on camera. It can all be undone by one thing. THE REWIND BUTTON. Someone can be fooled the first time, but unlike a live audience, internet viewers have an infinite amount of times they can watch the effect. And even if they crack the secret but don't post a comment, or make a video exposing an effect, the experience has still been mostly spoiled for them.
So I've been thinking about an idea. Certainly not a new idea. But one that would aid in preventing these things from happening. Editing performances to be "rewind proof". Most of the performances I've been filming have had two cameras present, each capturing a different angle. So, say I were to perform a top change, a move that in an unedited video could likely be picked up on, even with proper misdirection and blocking. Do you think it would it be wrong, at the moment of the move, to switch the camera angle to a shot where the change is happening out of frame? Or what if I performed Smoke by Alan Rorrison, an effect that if viewed twice, could easily tip the method. Do you think it'd be wrong to cutaway to a different angle if it would protect the secret? Or even crop the shot so that the "work" of the effect happened out of frame? I mean really, is it at all a good thing if spectators can undo all of your hard work with the simple push of the rewind button? I'm curious. What are your thoughts on the editing of magic on video to protect it's secrets?
In light of the recent discussion about Dan White's new television show, and Blaine's special a few weeks ago, I've decided to bring up this issue. Lately, it's been an issue that's been on my mind. I'm in the process of making a documentary, and included in it will be several of my performances. Upon completion, I hope to share the film on various media, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and possibly on my local public access station.
Many magicians, such as Richard Kaufman and Michael Weber to name a few, have gone on the record to say that magic should not be done for a camera. This belief is supported by the claim that on television, magic is flattened out, and the dynamicy and audience connection of the performance is lost almost entirely. This is a claim that for the most part I tend to agree with. In fact it seems to me like live magic, and magic for the camera are almost two different arts completely. However, as television and Youtube have become popular places for magic to be viewed, one must consider taking advantage of the opportunities that can arise from publicizing your performances on these media. Because I have a passion for filmmaking, and a passion for magic, I've decided to combine them. So I have been doing a lot of filming of my live performances.
As I look over the footage on my computer, I can't help but think of the annoying and inevitable ten year old boy that will hypothetically view my film, watch the effects, rewind, dissect them, rewind, rewind, and rewind until he figures it out. I can't help but think that said boy will feel so special about cracking the secret to an effect, that he will post the solution in the comments, thus spoiling the experience for the other viewers. Or worse, he could make a video of his own, that demonstrates the secret to the effect in its entirety (Which, believe it or not, I'm witnessing more and more. As an aside, when I first watched Collins Keys' presentation of Booked by Steve Valentine on America's Got Talent, I was surprised to see that one of the suggested videos on the side was a video that exposed every aspect of his performance in its entirety. Not only did this expose Keys' presentation of the effect, it also cracked open the general principle behind Steve Valentine's incredible effect). Because I have the respect that I do for magic, and it's mysteries, I can't help but feel disheartened when I see these exposure videos, and also can't help to think that it could happen to me-- Or anyone who performs magic on YouTube for that matter.
The other reason that magicians resent filming magic is for the simple reason that psychology doesn't work on a camera. Misdirection doesn't work on a camera. Many subtleties may not even work on camera. But they sure as hell work for a live audience! But the thing is, is psychology, misdirection, subtleties, etc.. can all be undone when the magic is done on camera. It can all be undone by one thing. THE REWIND BUTTON. Someone can be fooled the first time, but unlike a live audience, internet viewers have an infinite amount of times they can watch the effect. And even if they crack the secret but don't post a comment, or make a video exposing an effect, the experience has still been mostly spoiled for them.
So I've been thinking about an idea. Certainly not a new idea. But one that would aid in preventing these things from happening. Editing performances to be "rewind proof". Most of the performances I've been filming have had two cameras present, each capturing a different angle. So, say I were to perform a top change, a move that in an unedited video could likely be picked up on, even with proper misdirection and blocking. Do you think it would it be wrong, at the moment of the move, to switch the camera angle to a shot where the change is happening out of frame? Or what if I performed Smoke by Alan Rorrison, an effect that if viewed twice, could easily tip the method. Do you think it'd be wrong to cutaway to a different angle if it would protect the secret? Or even crop the shot so that the "work" of the effect happened out of frame? I mean really, is it at all a good thing if spectators can undo all of your hard work with the simple push of the rewind button? I'm curious. What are your thoughts on the editing of magic on video to protect it's secrets?