talkmagic.co.uk

Mandrake might I impose upon your wisdom?

Barnabus.....

You need to stop wearing those snakeskin boots to bed....You will more than likely wake up in the night and see two diamond-heads sticking out of the cover at the foot of the bed....It is scary, and I have started doing something daring....I have started sleeping without my boots on.....

I know it is not Texican to do that, but sometimes you just have to break traditions....

opie (fellow Texan)

I'm fine. And my boots are too.

Barnabas you can talk about camera magic all yo ulike as long as there is nothing about exposure in it

despite camera tricks being called tricks a trick doesn't even happen but its edited to look like something happened and fool the audience at home. There might be a load of "stooges" in on it that act like something spectacular happened but more likely they will film it in backwards the outcome and then the beginning and then cut it when editing to make it look like something magical happened.

Are we talking about this type of camera tricks (using misdirection) or other kinds which simply shut down and reposition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MyYNGzi ... ed&search=

opie

Alright here we go.

WARNING: THIS WAS NOT CREATED TO DEMOTE, NOR INSULT ANY MAGICIAN. EVERYONE IS FREE TO BELIEVE WHT THEY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. IMYSELF MAY BE COMPLETELY WORNG ON THIS SUBJECT. PLEASE KNOW THAT THIS IS A DEBATE. NOT AN ARGUMENT.

Alright here we go. Get ready to poor a hot cup of coffee and sit down for the long run. I am here to start a thread on probably the most controversial topic in the magic world at this current day and age. I know that I will lose what little popularity I have left when this gets started but it is something I must stand up for. We are living in an era where magic has now begun to explore beyond the streets and far further than the stage. Magic has now discovered the ability to share its beauty across the nations in one quick swoop. Television has allowed it to be broadcasted to millions of homes in mere seconds. With this new development of modern day entertainment Magic has been given the opportunity to possibly cheat its limitations. But has it really picked from the tree of knowledge and so lost its virginity or have skeptics and laymen spread false rumors and nasty gossip to dirty its clean name?

For centuries magicians have been performing live shows in front of real people in real situations. Stage Illusionists have the cunning to incorporate his surrounding to better amaze his spectators with astounding feats of impossibility. Street Magicians on the other hand chose to prove their skill by performing within feet of the viewers and within common environments. Neither style is considered wrong in the world of magic. But is TV magic truly a third, destructive type.

In a magic trick you have only two genres of people - ones watching the illusion and ones controlling the illusion. It is universally understood that the whole performance is under the spell of the Magician and his awareness to the art of deception. He controls the forces of misdirection and has the dexterity for sleight of hand to aid him. But if he were robbed of his techniques would the audience still be amazed. If he could somehow control their eyesight to see things in the time, order, and angle he chose while still maintaining the standard style of performance, would he still be as powerful as before mentioned.

Is it wrong to use a trick deck to enhance a performance? No. Is it wrong to have a stooge in the crowd to help you out? No. Is it wrong to set some hidden objects before the show? No. Is it wrong to use camera editing to create the illusion of a trick. I think it is very wrong. But to use this as a way to explain the unexplainable is just as wrong.

We here at TalkMagic are not laymen who haven’t a clue about the mysteries of this art. We come from many background and are spread across the planet, but we are united by a similar passion and hobbie. We all study and learn from this art and have the understanding of the limitations of certain phenomena. So when presented with something beyond comprehension even among fellow practitioners we fall into our childish and ignorant human logic. “Surly we cannot be fooled by such a trick. This man is an impostor and a lair. He is not who he claims and does not belong to us. He is a hoax and a cheat. Do not listen to his lies.”

Does this seem too far-fetched from what we say in the forums. By now I’m sure you all know whom I am referring to. Chris Angel is at the current time, the most popular magician on television. Because he is so well trained in the art of deception people have labeled him a fraud. Magicians plainly state that he uses CAMERA magic and not true skill to perform his illusions. In saying this you are robbing him of his well-earned glory. And many of these comments are made without the slightest bit of evidence. They are blurted out by the whim of the tongue. Not a single magician has true verification of this testimony. Yet it is my belief that there is evidence all around us that proves Chris Angel’s case.

If in fact he were this fraud would he not have been exposed in public? Are all of his illusions performed in front of only a few bystanders? No! He has been seen on many occasions to be performing in front of hundreds of spectators. And yet what is the claim. “Chris Angel is fonny.” “He is reaping what he has not sown.”

If we were not so blinded by our ignorance it would be clear that Chris is a truly professional magician who does in real life what is shown on television. Let me pose as a skeptical layman in an imaginary court case.


COURT ARISE for the hearing of the case “Chris Angel vs. Skeptic.” The jury in this hearing will be the members of TalkMagic. May the defendant state his case…

Chris Angel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6CzAJM6OA

Sceptical Laymen: Your honor I would like to point out that it is physically impossible to walk on water. Chris Angel does not have the special powers he claims to have.

Chris Angel’s Lawyer: I would like to object on the grounds that Chris never claimed to be able to truly have mystic powers, but that it is all illusion, as I’m sure the jury can agree with this.

Skeptic: So then this must be a camera trick. I saw it on TV therefore it can’t be real. This is just like in Hollywood when actors walk on water.

Chris’ Lawyer: Then how do you explain the spectators in the show.

Skeptic: They are all liars too. Chris merely hired them to look amazed and make false after comments. Every one of them is in on the trick.

Chris’ Lawyer: Have you any proof of your statement.

Skeptic: No, but I have really good feeling about it. But I bet you don’t even have any proof yourself.

Lawyer: We have the testimony of those who were there who claimed that they were not in on it.

Skeptic: But their all liars, you can’t trust their word.

Lawyer: How can we trust your word? What evidence besides your assumptions do you have to back up your claim?

Skeptic: Well none. But if there were more people watching the trick then I would believe.

Chris Angel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3waZKLeJVOs

Skeptic: This video is even worse. You can clearly see where there was a cut away.

Lawyer: Really? I see nothing. Nor do the people in the video. I’m sure they would see one.

Skeptic: They’re all in on it. Everyone. Chris certainly doesn’t have the skill to pull it off. I’ve never seen it done to me in person therefore it can’t be true. You can’t believe everything you see.

Lawyer: It would seem just as wrong to not believe when you choose in your mind that it’s false. What if he were surrounded by hundreds of civilians. Surly he can’t bribe them all.

Chris Angel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrU2qNfILoo

Skeptic: Ok that one I’m willing to believe, but that’s just one trick. He does many others which he could never do in front of a REAL audience.

Lawyer: What proof do you have?

Skeptic: None. But if he would simply reveal one of his tricks I would believe. Otherwise, he is still a fake to me. Only a fake cannot reveal his secret – because it doesn’t exist.

Lawyer: But a magician never reveals his trick. That would take the magic away from it.

Skeptic: I rest my case. Sure maybe Chris has a few moves. Maybe he can bust a few card tricks or fool some police. But all the big ones are impossible by all means.

Lawyer: Of course they’re impossible. It’s the illusion that it is that makes it magic.

Skeptic: Yeah, he really knows how to trick the viewers at home. He must be great with camera edits and wire removals.

Lawyer: But many other magicians can do amazing tricks just like these. A good example is David Copperfield.

Skeptic: Copperfield. Now he’s a real magician. He can do things live and in front of a whole live audience. Chris could never do that.

Lawyer: Did you know that Chris performed in the Aladdin on an eight year contract in which he performed hundreds of times on stage in his show called Mindfreak?

Chris Angel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av_qbNFEndk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhS2OSgF9wg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMeHLhALlv0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4ZjclGp ... ed&search=

Skeptic: This proves nothing. So what if he could do this stuff on stage. It’s a stage! His shows are loaded with smoke and mirrors. Any magician can perform on stage.

Lawyer: So why is Copperfield different?

Skeptic: Ok, ok. Maybe Chris does have some skills. I am still not convinced that he can do some of the things on his show. He simply isn’t good enough.

Lawyer: Do you know that Chris is the only Magician to ever win the coveted Magician of the Year Award three times. First in 2001, then 2002, and now 2005. You see, he was recognized well before he even hit television.

Skeptic: No magician can walk up a wall…

Lawyer: Did he somehow control the whole Vegas strip from watching? Or were the only people watching all stooges. Here’s a bit of an off subject comment. Why isn’t David Blaine so controversied.

Skeptic: I’ve studied street magic. I can catch all those double lifts and palms when I see them. He can’t fool me.

Lawyer: Many laymen think that he also uses camera magic.

Skeptic: Well, I know he doesn’t. Mostly because I know how he does his little tricks.

Lawyer; So if you understood how to do Chris’ tricks, you’d believe.

Skeptic: Yeah, but he’ll never release them, because they don’t really work in real life situations.

Lawyer: Did you think the Balducci was a camera trick the first time you saw it,

Skeptic: Yes, but now that I know its all a trick, its actually very simple.

Lawyer; Same thing with Chris’ magic. It’s all a trick.

Skeptic; Yeah, with cameras.

Judge: ORDER, ORDER IN THE COURT. Apparently neither side will give up. Either Chris is a major fraud or this Skeptic will never be willing to believe that a stronger illusionist fooled him. Jury it’s up to you to decide!


VERDICT:

Chris is either a lying Magician or he’s not. We all know that he is capable of performing some fantastic tricks. But are some false. It is my personal believe that not a single illusion on his show were achieved through the use of camera magic. I am not saying that he does not use Card Forces, the occasional stooge (especially when he pulled a woman in half), or even the use of gimicks. But I stand convinced that all of these were performed in real life the same you see them on TV.

Feel free to tear me apart now. I know that it is inevitable. But if you are intrigued enough to carry one this debate then let us go. I have made my stand – HAVE YOU.

Several camera tricks are used in His shows, some of us on this forum have a little inside knowledge and know what is going on, as the details could be considered exposure, i will leave it at that. I have respect for Angel, he is not the first to resort to this tactic. David Nixon had great success with using what he called "switchcraft".

Several camera tricks are used in His shows, some of us on this forum have a little inside knowledge and know what is going on, as the details could be considered exposure, i will leave it at that. I have respect for Angel, he is not the first to resort to this tactic.

Hum... So it seems we must belief your comment purly on the fact that you have inside knowledge. I understand that you can't reveal this bit of info. In fact I'd prefer if you didn't, to carry on the secret of the trick. But let me ask you something. Are you refering to all of his tricks in general or just one or two. And I myself happen to share the knowledge of how he performs about 1/3 of his illusions. Interestingly enough, not one of them uses a camera trick. So we're meeting at a stand still. Its your "secret knowlegde" vs. my "secret knowledge." This is why we need hard evidence. Not assumptions.

i am not asking anyone to believe anything (where is Craig when you need him ). so i have no more to say on the matter.

Craig is off chasing his white horse, so please allow me to express my opinion, before he gets back:

Chris Angel is a bright young man who is using whatever it takes to make himself a fortune by ENTERTAINING millions of people.....

As a capitalist, I am all for whatever it takes to make the dough. There is nothing in any rules of magic organizations which says that one cannot fool the audience by any means possible.....Where would the world be, if there were not one of us who could vanish the Statue of Liberty or an airplane? I personally prefer sleight of hand over gimmicks, but that is just because I love magic for its pure basic skills.......

Bottom line: If it puts money in the bank, do it.....If not, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE...

Barnabas, I don't think we disagree greatly.....You are referring to a stringent CODE, and I am referring to PERSONAL PREFERENCE, something that hopefully could never get you in trouble on any Anglo/American forum....

We do have a right to our opinions......(I too look forward to Craig's response.....and Mark's..haha....)

opie

Whilst I consider the use of clever editing etc to make an effect look better a bit distasteful (note that I said to make it look better, not as the basic principle for a trick) I've come to accept it to some degree as it won't go away any time soon. I've also decided that in a way it protects the art from exposure.

Here's why: When we perform to live audiences we only show a trick once, thereby not giving anyone the chance to study it in detail and work it out. When it's captured on film it instantly gives eggheads and nerds the world over carte blanche to study it frame by frame and work out the secret. If editing is used to remove or conceal points of the trick to make life harder for any persistent little exposure monkeys then so be it I say.

On the other hand the whole idea of a routine being impossible without the assistance of some software after the fact is plain poo. That's not magic in the sense we mean here, it's no more magic than any film with a bit of cgi in.

For what it is worth, here is my opinion:

Is it wrong to use a trick deck to enhance a performance? No. Is it wrong to have a stooge in the crowd to help you out? No. Is it wrong to set some hidden objects before the show? No. Is it wrong to use camera editing to create the illusion of a trick. I think it is very wrong. But to use this as a way to explain the unexplainable is just as wrong

I believe that stooges, previously hidden objects (in the case of the effect being that an object is transported from one place to another) are wrong. I personally do not use trick decks but I will not come straight out and label them as "wrong" as I am not up for that argument at this time.

As for camera tricks, they are absolutley, flat out, wrong, and their use in supposed "street magic" shows harms magic as an art and the damages the credability of magicians. The point of these supposed "live" street performances is that they are actually done live, to ordinary citizens on the street. If the performer has to resort to the use of stooges and/or camera tricks the audience may as well be watching an cartoon. The use of special effects (camera tricks) and stooges contradicts the whole "street" aspect of the performance. Again, when those methods are used the television audience is better off watching a cartoon or a Sci-Fi program.

Magic, the way I believe most magicians want to perform it, is honest. Now for thise who are thinking "we lie all the time during a performance", you are correct, but there is still a level of honesty. I think that when someone views a magician's performance they know that the magician will be deceptive, and possibly not tell the truth about some of the actions, but I also believe that the audience expects certain portions of what the magician says to be true. Items in that list should include things like "we have never met before", "we have not pre-arranged anything", "this is being performed for people who just happened to be here at the time". Let's face it, the audience (for the most part) does not believe that the magician has magical powers of any sort. They know that a trick is just that, a trick, and that the magician accomplished it by means of skill and/or aparatus that the audience is not aware of.

The disservice that comes from using camera tricks can be explained in the following, hypothetical, scenario:

You, a magician, are performing for some people. One audience member says "Hey, I saw this magician on TV just walking down the street. He gathered a crowd all around him and he levitated. He was completely surrounded by people off the street and he levitated about three feet into the air. Can you do that?"

You, as a magician could say "No". That spectator then thinks that that guy on TV is a much better magician than you are. This leaves the spectator thinking that the guy on TV is really good and that anyone who can't do that type of effect is not a "real" magician.

You, as a magician could say "No, and he can't either, it is just camera tricks and the people off the street were either his employees or paid to react as they did." That could have two possible out comes. 1) The spectator realizes that the guy on TV is lying and then disregards any televised performance as camera tricks. or 2) The spectator thinks that you are just bitter and jealous because the other guy is better than you. In both scenarios magic and magicians have been damaged in that spectator's eyes.

The worst part of the use of camera tricks is similar to cheating in university. A lot of people do it, and more feel that they have to because everyone else is and they wont stand a chance if they dont.

So, if the performer claims that it is a live performance in front of regualr people off the street then it should be and should not include camera tricks. And the performer does not have to actually say that it is live and that the people are just off the street, if it is implied it is jsut as dishonest as saying it outright.

I'm back.

Magic, the way I believe most magicians want to perform it, is honest. Now for thise who are thinking "we lie all the time during a performance", you are correct, but there is still a level of honesty.

Nice comment, this is the art of Deception after all.

You, as a magician could say "No, and he can't either, it is just camera tricks and the people off the street were either his employees or paid to react as they did." That could have two possible out comes. 1) The spectator realizes that the guy on TV is lying and then disregards any televised performance as camera tricks. or 2) The spectator thinks that you are just bitter and jealous because the other guy is better than you. In both scenarios magic and magicians have been damaged in that spectator's eyes.

This seems a bit off. I can see how many magician would get mad at Chris for performing an illusion that we can't possibly compete with. But this doesn't give us the right to call him a liar - especially if you truly don't know if Chris is lying or not. Why not call David Copperfield or Siggfried and Roy cheaters. I personally would perfer to promote the better magician over myself then wrongfully acuse them of magic crime without evidence.

I believe that stooges, previously hidden objects (in the case of the effect being that an object is transported from one place to another) are wrong. I personally do not use trick decks but I will not come straight out and label them as "wrong" as I am not up for that argument at this time.

Although we don't see exactly eye to eye on this one, I still suport your opinions about this. I'd say you have a great devotion to magic simply by this statement.

Whilst I consider the use of clever editing etc to make an effect look better a bit distasteful (note that I said to make it look better, not as the basic principle for a trick) I've come to accept it to some degree as it won't go away any time soon. I've also decided that in a way it protects the art from exposure. Here's why: When we perform to live audiences we only show a trick once, thereby not giving anyone the chance to study it in detail and work it out. When it's captured on film it instantly gives eggheads and nerds the world over carte blanche to study it frame by frame and work out the secret. If editing is used to remove or conceal points of the trick to make life harder for any persistent little exposure monkeys then so be it I say. On the other hand the whole idea of a routine being impossible without the assistance of some software after the fact is plain poo. That's not magic in the sense we mean here, it's no more magic than any film with a bit of cgi in.

I also think this is a valid point. CGI magic ins't skill and no, it won't go away soon. But protection of exposure to a trick that doesn't exist is debate-able.

Bottom line: If it puts money in the bank, do it.....If not, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE... Barnabas, I don't think we disagree greatly.....You are referring to a stringent CODE, and I am referring to PERSONAL PREFERENCE, something that hopefully could never get you in trouble on any Anglo/American forum....

This is a fault I have. Sometimes I get to passionate about the "code." But I still think it isn't someything to ignore.