Camera tricks are okay to use in magic
- Thread starter Josh Burch
- Start date
No, you're missing the important 'if'. That's why an effect with simple handling is much more powerful than the same effect with overhandling. If they suspect you did something fishy it is less effective than if you did the sleight invisibly and unseen. Which of course is the point of sleight of hand...
if they think there's a mirror - then the effect is diminished. But IF they don't see or suspect the mirrior, they will be amazed.
If
But this is the reason I'm not a huge fan of stage magic in general. Before I did magic, I always knew the tricks had something to do with the big fancy boxes. The one effect that used to make me so amazed was the lady on the spike. I had no idea. No box, no cover, and the spike goes right through her in full view. Then it's all undone. Brilliant. Copperfield flying - brilliant.
Some bad box illusions are so poorly done that its telling what is going on...
Some bad box illusions are so poorly done that its telling what is going on...
Suspecting sleight of hand isn't even close to suspecting a mirror or video editing though. You suspect sleight of hand? Then what?
If you suspect a mirror or trap door in the rig of a stage illusion then the illusion is kinda ruined. When you see a magician on stage pulling cards out of thin air. You know he's hiding them somewhere, doesn't diminish the effect at all. Because it looks so fair and impossible still.
I was never a fan of stage illusions with all the boxes and stuff. But the guy producing candles and pigeons? Amazing.
Really? I see a big difference. When I was a kid and saw Jeff McBride producing cards, I thought he had some sort of contraption up the back of his arm that fed him cards. Then he would show the other side of his arm and I was floored. I had no other options - I was mesmerized .
Had I known that it was possible to hide stacks of cards behind your hand, I would have been impressed, not amazed (much like when you see a manipulation act today).
In Darwin Ortiz's book Strong Magic (a must read) he points out a couple of differences between a magician and a layperson mentality. "If a magician succeeds in figuring out ninety percent of the trick but cannot figure out the other ten percent, he will feel like the trick fooled him; if a layperson succeeds in figuring out ten percent of the trick, but cannot figure out the other ninety percent of the trick, he will feel that it didn't fool him.... the layperson will think 'he didn't fool me, I saw him palm the card'".
"The question in a magician [watching as a] spectator is 'What is the explanation?'. The question in a lay-spectator's mind is 'Is there an explanation?'...therefore you must create the illusion of impossibility."
I once saw a magician accidentally cut his assistant (his wife) during the Saw a Woman in Half illusion. She died instantly and there was pandemonium on stage. It was horrific. That as a very different feeling than when I've seen that trick performed every other time by many other magicians. That tells me that the big box illusions are not really fooling anyone. The spectator more often that not will just assume that it was the box.
However, people really believe David Blaine floats and Criss Angel walks on water and climbs buildings. So what is the better method to create the illusion of impossibility?
Big boxes need to be justified just as much as a sleight or movement. This is a disconnect between close up magicians and stage magicians. The better stage magicians out there understand this the bad ones don't. Jim Steinmeyer once said "There are only about 2 places that making an elephant disapear nightly makes sense, a Seigfried and Roy show and the Circus"(that was a rough quote). Basically he means that there are things that make sense on stage just like there are things that make sense close up.
In the past the thought was that the bigger the box was the more empty it was. This notion began to disapear in the 1970's but unfortunately there are still people who don't understand the idea of minimalism.
In the past the thought was that the bigger the box was the more empty it was. This notion began to disapear in the 1970's but unfortunately there are still people who don't understand the idea of minimalism.
So sleight of hand isn't close to the same as trapdoors and video editing. Yeah if you know about a DL or false shuffle then tricks will be diminished. But you thought there must've been a contraption feeding him cards. No one can hide cards in their hands that good right?
Most people can't even begin to think what sleight of hand is exactly. They sure as hell know what trapdoors are or what video editing is.
Yes but if they don't suspect it's being used... If it's obvious that is one thing. You are missing the IF again.
I don't know if that's a correct generalization (perhaps it is), however, lets say it is. Think out the logical conclusion to what you are implying.
'If people always suspect video editing, a magician should not use it.' (Is that a fair way of putting it? This is what I'm getting from what you're saying, but I wnat to get it right)
Think about this in a sleight of hand context. If a magicain makes a coin vanish via french drop method, the spectator sees it is gone. They should (though not all will think about it this hard) naturally assume that it is hidden in one of the two hands. When you show one hand empty, they will automatically look at the other hand. Because the coin has to be somewhere. Their brain knows that. However, if both hands are immediatley shown empty - with fingers spread - this will be astonishing.
If you assume that just because spectators will know that the coin is still in your hands - you will never use this coin vanish.
What I am submitting is that there is more to it that can make it work (and judging by people's reactions to David Blaine levitating, I would say DOES work).
If you do the french drop and then show both hands empty using a subtlety (like Ramsey subtlety, or palming, or Harrada hold, or sleeving, or transferring the coin, or Goshman pinch etc), then to the spectator it will be the same as if you vanished the coin and immediately displayed your hands empty.
So if you use camera edits, one needs to think of ways to convince the audience that you did not. There are many ways (stooges, video quality, continuous shots, disclaimers beforehand, misdirection etc). If you can convince the audience that it is edit free, then you will blow them away. If not, well then you're right - you shouldn't do it.
But to simply say, 'the audience will guess the method (trap door, video edits, sleight of hand, trick cards etc), so therefore you shouldn't bother, isn't a good conclusion.
You need to convince them the deck is regular, there are no secret doors, there are no possible edits, no fishy hand movements etc.
This is how we work as magicians - I don't see video as a tool any different.
Why?
When they did the shots of David sitting with the wind flowing in his face, it was done in studio.
You might be thinking of the first phase of the routine which didn't employ the main gimmick (there was an edit so that the gimmicks could be swapped).
The joke amongst illusionists that were in the know on this piece was that it was full of hot air and clever photography. Which is about as far as I'm willing to go when it comes to tipping the thing.
It isn't a good conclusion though it is an increasing reality. People are becoming, "Smarter" through internet and social media. You could do an acr, make it as clean as possible and still people will think you've done something tricky with the deck or with your hands. It is the same as Camera tricks or boxed illusions. Laymen weren't privy to bases and fancy editing. However, now it is almost as common as sliced bread. That is why I highly encourage aspiring magicians in this generation not to focus completely on method, but instead putting focus on themselves and their entertainment value. Sure you didn't fool them, but at least they loved the show!
Funny, because of the crew the was in the know one of the big jokes was around the small amount of studio shooting there was, tied to this particular repeated shot. No, I'm saying that the whole effect was Green Screen -- It wasn't! I'm saying that there was one segment in all the editing and angles that was in studio (see frames @ 1:55 and how they are identical to 3:53)
The routine opens with him floating through a bunch of geometric shapes in a park area which is not the same gimmick used for the floating over the canyon (it was also my favorite part of the routine). Via editing it was made to look as if he moved from that phase of things into the flight across the canyon . . . a totally different gimmick. This is where the close-ups were that every person I know says that the back screen was being used.
[video=youtube;quDXr3gJpgk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quDXr3gJpgk&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
The routine opens with him floating through a bunch of geometric shapes in a park area which is not the same gimmick used for the floating over the canyon (it was also my favorite part of the routine). Via editing it was made to look as if he moved from that phase of things into the flight across the canyon . . . a totally different gimmick. This is where the close-ups were that every person I know says that the back screen was being used.
[video=youtube;quDXr3gJpgk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quDXr3gJpgk&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Last edited by a moderator:
Haha but everybody loves Mike and Craig. Besides it's a good argument, Craig has brushed shoulders with David in the past and Mike works on his creative team currently.
I have to respectfully disagree. I agree about your idea of putting high value and focus on entertainment value. However, I think our craft demands enough focus on method and choice of material to be baffeling to spectators. Sure, I get caught sometimes, but that means I either ditch the trick or refine it to be better. Jim Collins wrote a fantstic leadership book called Good to Great, and in it he uses the phrase 'good is the enemey of great'. I think the idea that spectators are getting smarter, more informed, and have knowledge at their fingertips, so therefore focus more on entertainment rather than method, is an enemy of being a great and mystifying entertainer. Both can (and do) exist.
One of my blogs here on the site is abotu that (if you have access to the blog section).
Just my thoughts - sorry they are a bit off topic.
I am not arguing with anyone Steerpike. I am simply relaying the information that I have been told first hand.