theory11 — Magic Tricks & the World's Finest Playing Cards

Fake tv magic: Angel or demon ?

There used to be a "joke" line that went "The Only Thing Wrong with Magic is All the Magicians". . . when you consider that less than 15% of us make an actual living at it and nothing else, that less than 1% of us ever become "recognized" and "remembered" by the laity, well I think you can get the gist of that line. Most of us are at best, part time paid help & filler acts and as such, there's a lot of bruised ego going around a.k.a. cynicism. BUT, the "Magic" of the past 15 years has become little to nothing to do with talent and a lot to do with playing to a camera, the majority of the TV Heads not having the ability to deliver a full-evening show in the vein of the past. They are not "Entertainers & Showmen" but rather "one trick ponies" that rely far too much on film edits, the abundance of stooges and other related controls. The weekly ops budget to a live Criss Angel show if done as he does it on TV would be as much if not more than what it cost to run the Siegfried & Roy show but with less than 10% of the umph . . . let's face it, anyone can do his act when they have a few dozen paid stooges on staff and set within the audience. THAT'S NOT MAGIC! Not by any stretch of the imagination. It's just cheating; cheating at the art form and cheating the paying public.

No, that does not mean we can't use stooges but if you study successful shows the most they ever use is 3 in any given performance and that would be for a huge production. Angel seems to use one for every effect he offers but too, Criss and others elect to do routines that cannot be replicated live and that my friends IS NOT magic. . .

Yes, "Perspective Control" is a principle within magic and yes, using the Harary Perspective technique still applies to magical work; it is a literal advancement to a yesteryear principle designed for the video medium. However, certain performers have taken this factor to be permission to stretch the idea of perspective and even the use of "digital cheating" (a.k.a. special effects via the video only medium) so they can make an effect seem more impromptu/impossible. . . this again sustains the fact that they CANNOT replicate the piece in a live show, which by the way, is what the public expects you to do when they pay premium price to sit in a theater and see your show.. . they want to see what you did on TV!

There is no such thing as a "Magic Show" it would seem but rather, a collection of fools that do single effects and pander to a camera, be it National TV or Youtube. We no longer seem to have or support the quality and pride of performance that was seen just a few short years ago in the Lance Burton Show or the Spectacle of S&R. We see very few individuals investing themselves into the idea of building an actual show and lots of manifestation of fools that love to "tricks" that have no rhyme of reason when it comes to blocking, scripting, choreography and scripting. . . that is to say, they don't know how to build an actual SHOW because for 15 years or so now, there's not been an example of this in the U.S. the closest demonstration being the Derren Brown Tv spots in the UK.

Video and most particularly Internet based video, is killing Magic when it comes to the idea of showmanship and true artistic expression as an ENTERTAINER. There is no interaction with the public, no learning curve for the performer just the expression of ego.
 
Maybe it's about time that those of us who want magic to be held to higher standards created something akin to the "Dogme 95" rules for film-making. In other words, a clear, unambiguous checklist, adherence to which could become a gold standard for performing magic for a camera. Off the top of my head, these rules could include:

1. There must be at least one spectator present who experiences the effect exactly as the viewer of the footage does. In other words, they can have made no prior arrangement as to how to behave and, if asked, would report the effect to be as seen on the video.

2. The camera is only there to record what takes place. The equipment used to capture the audio and video, and any post-production, can not be used to alter or enhance the effect.
 
TeeDee said:
Maybe it's about time that those of us who want magic to be held to higher standards created something akin to the "Dogme 95" rules for film-making. In other words, a clear, unambiguous checklist, adherence to which could become a gold standard for performing magic for a camera. Off the top of my head, these rules could include:

1. There must be at least one spectator present who experiences the effect exactly as the viewer of the footage does. In other words, they can have made no prior arrangement as to how to behave and, if asked, would report the effect to be as seen on the video.

2. The camera is only there to record what takes place. The equipment used to capture the audio and video, and any post-production, can not be used to alter or enhance the effect.
Click to expand...




Yeah well the thing is we can't force anything thought.... Why would anybody feel forced to respect theese "laws" ?
 
Aeltham said:
Yeah well the thing is we can't force anything thought.... Why would anybody feel forced to respect theese "laws" ?
Click to expand...

The same reason that people feel obliged to avoid exposure. If enough magicians got behind the idea, and maybe even created some sort of certification system, then, over time, the community of magicians would shift their practices in the right direction. Of course, there would always be "Masked Magician" types who don't care about the opinion of their peers, but they would be the exception.
 
TeeDee said:
The same reason that people feel obliged to avoid exposure. If enough magicians got behind the idea, and maybe even created some sort of certification system, then, over time, the community of magicians would shift their practices in the right direction. Of course, there would always be "Masked Magician" types who don't care about the opinion of their peers, but they would be the exception.
Click to expand...

Is the audience magicians or laymen? That's the real problem. Yes - magicians can try to enforce social stigma to keep folks in line with certain ideals. However, the person who doesn't care what magicians think about his show or reputation, only what the people who are watching it (ie: the audience that gets him his pay check) - will not bother conforming if there's no real incentive to do so. Are laymen going to care if there's some kind of certification for a TV show? Doubt it.

Eventually the laymen will care if what they see on TV cannot be replicated live as we've seen with Angel. They will also care if the person who they see on TV is a jerk when they meet in real life. But they won't care much what other magicians think of them.
 
ChristopherT said:
Is the audience magicians or laymen? That's the real problem. Yes - magicians can try to enforce social stigma to keep folks in line with certain ideals. However, the person who doesn't care what magicians think about his show or reputation, only what the people who are watching it (ie: the audience that gets him his pay check) - will not bother conforming if there's no real incentive to do so. Are laymen going to care if there's some kind of certification for a TV show? Doubt it.

Eventually the laymen will care if what they see on TV cannot be replicated live as we've seen with Angel. They will also care if the person who they see on TV is a jerk when they meet in real life. But they won't care much what other magicians think of them.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree when it comes to people like Criss Angel who already have their TV show, money and fans. However, I reckon that if young magicians making YouTube videos could display some sort of certification which declares that their performances meet certain standards then that could very easily become a prestigious badge of honour. Especially if one or two big names were signatories to the certification idea. So, by changing practices at this root level, the ideals are instilled for the next generation. Maybe, eventually, even lay audiences would learn to value the difference between "real" and "fake" magic.
 
TeeDee said:
Definitely agree when it comes to people like Criss Angel who already have their TV show, money and fans. However, I reckon that if young magicians making YouTube videos could display some sort of certification which declares that their performances meet certain standards then that could very easily become a prestigious badge of honour. Especially if one or two big names were signatories to the certification idea. So, by changing practices at this root level, the ideals are instilled for the next generation. Maybe, eventually, even lay audiences would learn to value the difference between "real" and "fake" magic.
Click to expand...

That is entirely possible but it's a distinction that only magicians care about as far as I can tell. And honestly - if I'm going to jump through a hoop to get some kind of certification (even if that hoop is just to submit the video to some group) then it better be worth it. What benefit could this certification guarantee me, that I couldn't get just by putting my video up? Will it guarantee more views? Strongly doubt it. So what's the real-world benefit?
 
I stopped watching Criss Angel years ago, but I'd like to throw a wrench or two into this discussion.

First, stooges are just a method. Some say stooge work is always "cheating," some say that it's still magic even if you use a room full of stooges to fool one person, and still others want to quibble over exactly when, how, and how many stooges constitutes "cheating." I don't use them, but to me they're no different than a double lift or a thumb tip; they're a means to an end and should be used in whatever ways and numbers they need to be to make the desired effect work for whatever audience you're playing to. To some people, stooge-heavy TV magic isn't very magical, but some people love it and some people are even unshakably convinced that it's real magic.

Second, I've seen Blaine, Angel, and other TV performers use magic that's available from magic retailers like Ellusionist and T11...stuff that doesn't require stooges and can be done for live audiences using only conventional props and sleight of hand. Some examples that jump to mind are "Sinful: Coin Through Can," "Fraud," and "eXile," but I've seen others, too. Not every trick done on TV uses a stooge, and it's not always easy to tell which is which, especially for laymen. Some just think it's all done with stooges and camera tricks, and some think they use demons (no kidding).
 
A lot of you guys will agree that using a stooge is fine, which in very few cases, it is but if any of you got into performing magic on a tv show and then used a stooge for a miracle effect and then later being asked to perform that effect by a fan in the street, knowing you can't, what would you say? Sure you would say something like "no I can't levitate your son but can I show you a card trick?"

My point being, if you make yourself to look like you can perform miracles, then you're only degrading yourself by being put in a situation where you can't meet up to the bar that you have set.

And yes there are a few effects being done on tv that can be performed live but its a 10 to 1 ratio of impossible magic vs possible magic.
 
RedbeardThePink said:

Second, I've seen Blaine, Angel, and other TV performers use magic that's available from magic retailers like Ellusionist and T11..


Not every trick done on TV uses a stooge, and it's not always easy to tell which is which, especially for laymen. Some just think it's all done with stooges and camera tricks, and some think they use demons (no kidding).
Click to expand...

Yeah i know my topic on the cafe just talked about what is fake and used the camera, i see nothing wrong with stooges either, it's the camera that is a problem to me.

And yeah, the people who think we are demons are a real thing. Go check "xendrius" on youtube thoose who didn't know haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.