talkmagic.co.uk

Oh how badly I want to get deeply involved with this topic.. but I just cant be bothered. I've discussed this in other posts. Criss does use edits on a lot of tricks and I can prove it but I cant because of the board rules.

I'll just say this. I respect Criss as a magician. He does have excellent skills and appears to have mastered the "art". HOWEVER, he doesnt use these skills to the full extent on his show. What we see is unachievable stunts and illusions and often poorly edited tricks. And what we see is NOT what the "live audience" sees as someone pointed out before.

Barnabas wrote:Surly he isn't refrencing them all. What amazes me most is that when Chris performs a trick (that we know he didn't use camera tricks on, such as how he fooled the police) with such elegance and fluid skill, we still seem to dought that his skill ends there. When I watch his shows there is amolst always a trick or two that I can easily figure out, but the way he performs it is astonishing. I can see how it would fool a layman. So when Chris lavitates 5 feet off the ground I find it hard not to think that he's capable of doing it.

Quite, he wasn't referencing them all, in fact I understood the post to be quite explicit in stating that only some use editing.

I think your use of the term "we" is a little innacurate as it seems that the vast majority of members posting in this thread are claiming great respect for Angel's skills; certainly not doubting that he is a very competent magician, both at close-up and large scale illusion.

I did not read the full thread because a lack of time, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating things that have already been said.
Barnabas you addressed with your argument to Criss Angel by himself, probably because he is the most controversial magician right now out there. He has his own TV magic show that have been going on a second season already, but most importantly because he is known for bending known techniques from other aspects of magic into "Street magic", and even more important then that, the fact that on his second season especially, he went to a level of overkill concerning him trying to convince the audience at home that what shows on camera is what seen in live (or if you like "what you see is what you get".. which is kind of redundant when you think about it because he IS doing an illusion after all.. It should have been "What you see is what there is" or something of that nature, but never mind).

Now truth be told, when you address TV magic, the whole area become very sensitive. For the home viewer, especially the skeptic kind, when he see something unexplainable on TV, done to a live audience, while on the other channel you can see a movie in which robots come to life and "real" dinosaurs march the land, it's easy to relay on the idea that both, even though very deferent, are founded on the same "TV" base, which means: stooges, camera tricks, editing, F/X, and showing what the magician wants you to see.
Under the same category of "home viewers" tend to fall a lot of dumbfounded magician that just can't believe they can be fooled, this is true. But as the saying goes sometimes the paranoid IS being chased by someone, even though usually it's just the wind.
The same goes here, Criss was once supposedly caught using camera editing (the famous "going back in time" trick every magic conspiracy monger was fed by for so long), and that one time actually turned all his other work to be almost "legitimately" called by other skeptics "camera tricks", even though this is most likely not the case.
But the reason this subject is so sensitive is because it turns the question: "What IS "legit" in magic?" magic is basically the creation of an illusion, to make something that is not real appear to be real, and that goes for all aspects of magic even mentalism (which is an area I do not wish to get into because it is even more sensitive when done on TV but for deferent reasons so I will just back off).
So under that definition, the meaning of the magician is a man that his job is to create the illusion, but the question is still: does the goal justify all means when it comes to creating the illusion? You can do amazing illusions using camera tricks and editing so why is it considered so wrong? I find this to be a very "gray" area, as so a lot of magicians, because at that point, when you create your illusion using editing you are dancing very close to line between performance magic, and blockbuster movies "magic" of editing, which is a point in which you really are no longer that deferent then that movie on the next channel that also creates the illusion of something that is not real.
But then again what about other things, things like angel management using camera, and routines management using movie cutting, earpieces, stooges, and other things of that nature, Criss and also other magicians on TV have been known to use all of those "advantages" to create their illusions, but the question is, what makes them more legit then camera tricks and editing if at all? This is a very thin line that just by thinking about it can easily change. And if it IS right, what does it say about video editing, and if it ISN'T right, what does it say about expansive props, and props planting, what does it say about gimmicks, what does it say about magic as a whole?
Again these are all reasonable questions, and I believe everyone draw their own line when it comes to this, and make their own judgment.

I would like to point out, iummydd - the hallway effect was NOT a camera edit. There were no cuts or camera tricks used. If you're going to cite something as an example, please be sure the example actually has something to do with the point you're trying to make. The simple fact that there were no cuts or camera tricks in this effect should remove it from the statement.

It should also be pointed out that all of the attacks on this particular effect (and every other one) could NEVER have been made if the effect was not scanned over repeatedly at multiple speeds. You can hardly cast a strike against the performer when the TV viewer has unlimited instant replay. The effect is supposed to be "in the moment" - poring over it afterwards and discovering flaws after going over and over it hardly makes the effect worthless (or the "exposer" clever, for that matter).

As for the link with the person giving the "real" account of the motorcycle vanish - that particular person had 2 posts on the forum, never posted after that time, and really had no actual supporting evidence. Perhaps this is a true account, but without some more concrete evidence that the person was even there - I can't make a firm decision on the validity of the claim.

I still ask for concrete evidence of full-on camera editing/post editing. I have asked for it numerous times, not once has any been brought forward. I have seen stooging, prop placement and things of that nature - nothing different from thousands of professional performers. I would like actual evidence of editing and trickery. Bizkit - you claim to know of them, I'd love to hear your thoughts. PM me.

link to the video
http://www.veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e883496w92EGgq

Demitri wrote:I would like to point out, iummydd - the hallway effect was NOT a camera edit. There were no cuts or camera tricks used. If you're going to cite something as an example, please be sure the example actually has something to do with the point you're trying to make. The simple fact that there were no cuts or camera tricks in this effect should remove it from the statement.

Mind you, I said "supposedly caught", I didn't say he used editing nor said he didn't, I said that that particular effect was widely published in the magic community as video editing and as a "proof" for Criss's usage of editing. Whether true or not true is not really the point I wanted to make, but to show the way this sort of thing is taken by magicians and laymen alike.


Edit:

I have just watched CA's bike vanish video, and whether true or not the statement that it was done by pure editing, I personally, just by watching it, thought of a method of doing it without any editing, and it's not THAT expansive or difficult or dangerous method either, so it's hard for me to believe Criss didn't thought about it himself, and if he did, as he probably did, even harder for me to believe he preferred to do it the "dirty" editing way instead of the pure illusion way.

I wasn't trying to attack you, ium - just pointing it out. Criss Angel himself exposed the method on Penn Jillette's radio show over here in New York. Granted, many people already knew how it was done - but the theories that it was camera editing/cuts is a lie.

True and not true is part of the point - especially in this case where the theories were brought forth, then quickly people jumped in on the bandwagon - and now, even after the actual method was revealed, people still claim it was how THEY saw it, not the truth. This, I believe, is the case in many of the theories that abound. Most people hear something from someone else, and formulate their opinion based on that, and nothing else.

I would like to point out, iummydd - the hallway effect was NOT a camera edit. There were no cuts or camera tricks used. If you're going to cite something as an example, please be sure the example actually has something to do with the point you're trying to make. The simple fact that there were no cuts or camera tricks in this effect should remove it from the statement.

There is no camera edit but it is rehearsed and scripted and the "live" audiences are not real. For me it does not justify as a real magic. This trick is same as Marco Tempest's tricks. Many of us know how he do those tricks. Do you respect him a great magician? I don't because I know he can not perform those tricks live. To perform magic tricks in front of live audiences require practice and skill. I think the most important element of magic is the audiences. The genuine reaction from your audiences is the most rewarding thing to a magician.

How right you are young OKBUN. For me this is a black & white issue, camera tricks and edits which are included in a video or TV show which imply a certain modus operandi when a live audience would not see the same as the camera lens should be shunned by all students of magic.
It is our duty, in my opinion not only to discourage it but to EXPOSE it whenever we have proof of its existance. I know nothing obout Chris Angel and am not able to comment, but I had no guilt at all in telling lay people when they raved about Mr Blaines's levitation that the view on TV of him rising 2 feet into the air from the back was NOT what the street audience saw or reacted to. I hasten to say that I did not reveal the Balducci levitation to them. People with real talent should not, and need not get involved in faking tricks with cameras.

It seems I keep missing in on the action. Everytime I come back I find so many messages I missed. So to catch up...

Quite, he wasn't referencing them all, in fact I understood the post to be quite explicit in stating that only some use editing. I think your use of the term "we" is a little innacurate as it seems that the vast majority of members posting in this thread are claiming great respect for Angel's skills; certainly not doubting that he is a very competent magician, both at close-up and large scale illusion.

This is a very valid statement and i was to quick to use the word "we." I myself don't like it when someone refrences a large group as one. So be assured that I will try harder to not over generalize in the future.

Now truth be told, when you address TV magic, the whole area become very sensitive. For the home viewer, especially the skeptic kind, when he see something unexplainable on TV, done to a live audience, while on the other channel you can see a movie in which robots come to life and "real" dinosaurs march the land, it's easy to relay on the idea that both, even though very deferent, are founded on the same "TV" base, which means: stooges, camera tricks, editing, F/X, and showing what the magician wants you to see.

I do see your point and it is worth analyzing. Yes a magician is an "illusionist" that creates the illusion of supernatural powers. And it would seem that as long as it fools someone, Camera Tricks are just another tool in a magicians bag of goodies. But it does have its limits I think. As previously stated about Chris' motocycle jump (if it is true) than this is truly extreme camera magic. The entire illusion was created without a real audiance. I also mentioned earlier that I don't think that the occastional use of stooges is wrong. But I also think (very much so) that having a stooge make an after-trick-comment is very wrong. Even if half the audiance was staged, a magician should never have a stooge give false testimony. This is my oppinion.

I would like to point out, iummydd - the hallway effect was NOT a camera edit. There were no cuts or camera tricks used. If you're going to cite something as an example, please be sure the example actually has something to do with the point you're trying to make. The simple fact that there were no cuts or camera tricks in this effect should remove it from the statement.

I agree with this post. Thanks Demitri. I also examined this video after hearing that before mentioned post on the other thread and found no evidence what-so-ever of a cut away or "run away." Even if they were the fastest runners on earth, I still don't think they could make all the way back in time. I acually in watching the video found a much simpler explanation for this that makes good sense.[/code]

Okbun - Rehearsed and scripted - just like any stage magic performance would be. Do you think a sawing in half illusion is impromptu?

Granted, these are two different scenarios - but I have upheld that the hallway effect was not created for the people IN the hallway.

Take a look at the video - the people he is walking with are his friends, family and show crew - the effect was meant to be performed for the TELEVISION audience. The canned reactions were placed for effect. While it could lead a less observant viewer to believe the people in the hallway were the intended audience, even casual observation of WHO was in that group would settle the issue.

Given the method used to create this illusion - it is incredibly obvious that he wasn't performing for the people in the hall. Think about it. If he was performing for the people in the hallway, why would he step in front of the camera???

I'm not familiar with Marco Tempest, so I cannot comment. I am however a fan of Criss Angel's work - and while I think some of this more "staged" effects aren't the strongest, they are still clever. I'm not sure if your comments were meant to say that Criss Angel isn't a skilled performer, so I won't go too much into that possibility.

Lownatic - may I ask WHY you felt compelled to tell lay people about the levitation? You say it is our duty to do such things, but I can't imagine why. What purpose is there to expose certain methods? Why do you feel the need to do such things? I'd truly like to know.

Demitri wrote:Take a look at the video - the people he is walking with are his friends, family and show crew - the effect was meant to be performed for the TELEVISION audience. The canned reactions were placed for effect. While it could lead a less observant viewer to believe the people in the hallway were the intended audience, even casual observation of WHO was in that group would settle the issue.

Given the method used to create this illusion - it is incredibly obvious that he wasn't performing for the people in the hall. Think about it. If he was performing for the people in the hallway, why would he step in front of the camera???

Don't the "canned reactions" imply that the people in the hallway were "fooled" by the effect? Just like a laugh track on a sitcom implies that the audience thought that whatever the star quipped was funny, the gasps of amazement imply that the spectators were amazed. If camera tricks are going to be used and/or the audience reactions are "canned" it should not be presented as magic. I agree that it is obvious that the people in the hallway are connected to the performer, and that it is obvious that they are in on it and that they are not the intended audience, but it is presented as though they were and that crosses a line of dishonesty that I personally believe does a disservice to the art of magic and to all magicians.

As for calling those performers out on the use of camera tricks I still believe that doing so is basically a lose/lose proposition for the performer and the magician calling the performer out. It will eventually become common knowledge that the performers who use camera tricks do so, magic will be set back as an art form for a while, but then magicians who do not need to use camera tricks will step up to the challenge and redeem magic as an art.

In some ways, Kolisar - I agree. The canned gasps create that idea in some people - but not all.

In this particular instance - given the distance of the people at the far end of the hallway - without SOME kind of audible reaction and/or noise - the entire effect can be lost on someone. The laugh track isn't ONLY for the purpose you mentioned - it's also to let the tv audience know what they've heard was supposed to be funny.

Again, perhaps I'm reading too much into comments I've seen - but are you implying that Criss Angel is setting the art of magic back? If so, I could not disagree more.

Demitri. I did not expose any magical secrets to lay people. What I did do was inform them that what they saw Blaine do, was not what the spectators saw. It was in essence a camera trick and completely uneccessary. The genuine reaction of the sprctators to the balducci levitation is testiment to how good it can be when performed well, and in the right conditions. The extra footage of a completely different levitation implying that this is what everyone saw does nothing but bring our art into disrepute. If we embrace camera tricks then, I agree with some previous contrbutors, surely Harry Potter is the greatest magician.

Demitri wrote:Again, perhaps I'm reading too much into comments I've seen - but are you implying that Criss Angel is setting the art of magic back? If so, I could not disagree more.

I am not sure that he, personally, is setting the art of magc back, but I do think that there could be a backlash and a setback for magic if the general public learn that any magician uses camera tricks or stooges when claiming or implying to be performing "live" for "strangers on the street".

For the record I like neither Criss Angel or David Blaine. I think that they can perform sleight of hand and stage illusions well, and they have brought magic back into the public eye, like Copperfield and Henning back in the early '80s, I just do not personally like their performance styles but I do not deny them their success and fame for the things that do not use camera tricks. My concern is the reaction of the public when they learn that camera tricks were used.