talkmagic.co.uk

Here is the crux of my argument:

Some stage illusions are simply useless things, specifically by their contradictory nature.

My example:

A box is placed over the assistant's head. Swords are pierced through the box in such a way that the assistant's head must certainly have been impaled. Then, in the most useless display of magiciankind, the front door is opened and there is no head! It has disappeared!

Tell me that such a display doesn't suggest a contradiction in effect. Swords have pierced a head that doesn't exist. As the swords go through, you feel uncomfortable because they simply cannot ALL miss that poor schmuck's head. However, the joke's on you because there isn't a head in there at all.

Why on earth would a magician put swords through a non-existant head? If you're going to make the head disappear, then leave the swords out of it. If you're going to impale a head with swords, then don't make the head disappear.

Any thoughts? [please note, I said SOME illusions, not all]

Mike.

That was my initial thought the first time I saw this illusion in the shop I worked at, but I assumed that there must be some good reason for it or all these illusionists wouldn't buy the things!

If you are to make a head disappear then do just that, if you want to stick swords through one then do it, but by doing both you invalidate at least one of them.

Which other illusions do you feel do the same thing? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I don't have a particuarly good memory for illusions.

Gotta admit that does sound a little illogical, I suppose it could be argued that after putting the swords through the head, the magician reveals his method, he simply made the head vanish?

Why a penetration to build to a vanish? We have reached an era in magic where doing something without reason or cause is being questioned. While I don't fully agree with some of the mainstream thinking on this subject, the idea of putting sword through an empty box simply doesn't excite me. For just a moment, let's think like a lay audience and not as magicians who say, "This is the way that it's done, so I'll just do it this way, blindly refusing to look at alternative thoughts and what my audience may be experiencing."

My magician's side out of the way, I find that showing the penetrated box empty to be an anti-climax. I watch those swords go through the box and wonder how anyone could possibly dodge them. For all intents and purposes, they can't, so it must be the magician's powers that keep the person safe from those piecing points and sharp edges. Voila! No head inside! Damn, no wonder they weren't getting cut - There just ain't no head in there.

So what, exactly, did that magician prove? That he could put swords into an empty box? Hey, I can do that. That he could vanish someone's head? I can't do that, but if you vanish the person's head, I'm more than capable of piercing that empty box for you without hurting anyone. So, you thought that my assistant was in peril? Hah!! Jokes on you, you schlub - there's no head in that box! Did you think that I would take the chance of cutting my assistant? I can't put swords in their head unless their head is gone.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. And when my discomfort with the idea that nobody could dodge all those swords gives way to the fact that I've been tricked because there isn't a head in there, anyway, that is exactly how I feel - like a schlub.

Now, conversely, if the person's head is vanished and swords are put into the box to prove, specifically, that there is no head in the box, then that is a different story. Basically, if the swords come first, then you are proving the vanish in reverse. This is anti-climatic, no matter how you look at it. It would be something like doing the Zig-Zag lady, then opening the box to show that she has vanished. Why pull out the midsection of a non-existant assistant? And why, oh why, put swords through a non-existant head?

Nick J. wrote:Which other illusions do you feel do the same thing? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I don't have a particuarly good memory for illusions.

Sorry, I can't be of help here. This is the one illusion that really bugs the heck outta me!

Mike.

The very best version of this particular illusion that I ever saw was one created by Roy Riley.

Basically the effect is that a normal cardboard box is examined by a few spectators then the box is placed over the magicians assistant's head, and then 6 long serated bbq skewers (also examined) are thrust (at speed) through the cardboard box, from all angles.

The effect is absolutely terrifying, and consequenatlly when the skeweres are extracted and the box is removed there is always a huge round of applause (and a bigger sigh of relief?) as the assistant is seen to be in tact.

Why is this illusion so powerful? For the exact same reasons as stated. Somehow, by magic, the magician has protected the assistant in someway.

So how could that be?

And isn't that the question we want left on the spectators lips at the end of every illusion? "How Could that be? It's just impossible!"

The spectator WILL consider a few possibilities. Maybe the head was penetrated and then healed? Maybe the head vanished? Maybe the sqewers were made of rubber (no, we examined them and besides, you heard them rip through the cardboard. They were very real).

It is this wonderment that makes the illusion. To give an out like the original does TOTALLY takes away from the overall illusion. It destroys the initial illusion for the sake of creating a (much) lesser illusion.

So why was it done like that?

I think the answer is very simple. Someone (do we know who?) came up with the original illusion of the knives through the box on head, and discovered that with the method used and a little thought you got this freaky looky second illusion for free. It's got to be worth it right? A free second illusion? Two for the price of one?

NO!!!! It's called guilding the lilly! Sometimes more is less!

What they failed to consider is that the second illusion isn't as powerful as the first, and lets face it there are far better and more magical ways to do the second. (And I can give an example if needed). By using the second illusion the first is first forgotten, and even when it is remembered it gets the - "oh yeah but the head wasn't there" treatment, so it is remembered as the great "knives through empty box" illusion, which to be perfectly honest never made it to the top 100 magical illusions...

so all in all I tend to agree. the illusion would have been better if the head is never shown as missing (and in fairness, I know magicians who don't do that phase).

Michael Jay wrote:Now, conversely, if the person's head is vanished and swords are put into the box to prove, specifically, that there is no head in the box, then that is a different story.

That's a good point, and would be even better if the swords could be pushed throughwith the doors open and the stage surrounded. It is a shame really that all the versions I have seen need at least one of the swords to hide the method of the head vanish. If a head is seen to be gone then the initial thought is that trickery is involved (doh) but if any of the logical solutions can be dicredited then that's all to the good.

OK, my fourpenn'orth!

The illusion as described would be just plain boring - not magic, not illusion, just a sort of effect which shoots itself in the foot by having both aspects in one routine. As stated, one or the other would be OK, the two together - no thanks! The real mystery of all this would be how long the audience would hang around before walking out en masse.

If you need to see how a cardboard box can be used for a real penetrating effect then Shahid Malik's Cardboard Box Penetration has to be one of the best. His rather lovely wife is totally inside and he thrusts many large wooden pole into the box from apparently random angles and directions. Check out http://www.shahidmalik.co.uk/magic_illu ... lusion.htm for an indication.

So much for debate, everyone has taken the same side!

I don't think we have any illusionists to offer another perspective either, looks like we will all have to agree that the guy who invented this illusion miscalculated a bit.

It's a sobering thought though - very often we can't see the Wood for the Trees and this seems to be a case in point. I would imagine that a lot of time and effort went into doing that effect but, as it was on the wrong rack, it was all wasted. How many times have we worked on an effect only to find that it isn't as good as we believed and the audience give it the bird. Or the finger.

There's a link on Magic Week where Black Hart mentions the lesson he learned about not doing one of his favourite effects. Sadly, nobody else liked it and it was only after one audience showed him it was a non-event that he realised the error of his ways. It might be good to you but, if it isn't good to the audience, stop doing it!

Just playing 's advocate here, in the interest of debate...

Right, box goes on head... Spec's thinking: "Why has he put that box on her head? What's he gonna do now?"

Swords go through the box... Spec's thinking: "OH MY GOD!!! He's shoving swords through the head of his assistant! She must be brave to be able to cope with that cos I don't think there's a light in that box so she can't even see the damn things coming!!!"

Magician reveals empty box... Spec's thinking: "Her head has disappeared! And the swords have gone right through! Oh my god! I was on the edge of my seat because she was dodging all those nasty shiny sharp blades of steel, but her head has vanished anyway! HOW THE HELL DID HE DO THAT!?!?!? I mean, like, where's her head, dude?"

... I suppose the whole swords before reveal thing is simply another way to build up the fact that the head has vanished... Like, maybe, um, there's hundreds of way to reveal a card to a spectator. The swords are used as a kind of tension builder... Do you see what I mean?

It's not one of my favourite effects either, but let's look at this in a different way.

Audiences know that people need their heads.

I can't believe any modern spectator seriously thinking, "The swords are no big deal because the box is empty," because clearly the box cannot be empty, as someone's head should be there.

"Magically", it might not make sense, because "magically" the head has gone. However, people over the age of six are trying to work it out and now, not only is the head (obviously) still there somewhere, but invisible, the knives are in place and the head (wherever it is) must be avoiding the blades too. Where is there room for all of that; it's impossible! If you like, it enhances the mystery of how the daggers miss the head.

Criticising this effect like that is a bit like saying, "Why did you levitate your assistant, then have her turn into a dozen doves in mid-air? Everyone knows doves can fly." People don't think she really changed into a flock of birds. They know it's a trick.

One of the issues I have with illusions is that, no matter how clever and impressive, most people will know that there's a trick somewhere and that it might just have something to do with those big tables, oversized buzzsaws or stripey cabinets. They don't know exactly what, but they guess that something's phoney.

However, I do think that opening the box might be a bit of an anti-climax.

Well, you wanted a debate.

I've had this discussion with several stage illusionists. Every one of them, so far, has agreed that the "Head Chest Illusion" should be retired because, well, quite frankly, it sucks. However, they whole hearted disagree with my premise in the use of other illusions, such as the "The Temple of Benares."

Neil Alexander wrote:The fact that there is someone in the box, and of course there is throughout the entire illusion, is reinforced in this way:

The first sword is inserted. As I walk to the other side of "the box" the first sword is pushed out from inside the box. This gets a laugh and shows someone is in there.

I walk around the box, still holding the second sword and reinsert the first one. Upon walking to the other side the first sword is again ejected. Second laugh.

I replace the sword and upon inserting the second sword there is a high-pitched comic scream from inside the box. Third laugh.

The balance of the swords are quickly inserted in the box and the temple turned a full turn to display the front back and sides and that one can easily see under the temple, ie. there are no traps, no exterior shelves, etc. There are in fact no traps, exterior shelves or mirrors, all of which a lay audience would expect are necessary, rather this works on the dollhouse principle that I am certain you are acquainted with.

When I open the doors and the audience can see the assistant has vanished it is a major applause point. If it did not get major applause at this point every single time I do the trick I would have replaced it long ago.

So, some illusions can be worked through to make the presentation of the penetration followed by the vanish climatic, rather than anti-climatic. With the head chest, however, it is a useless thing. However, I do believe that the effect could be played to comedy effectively. From a serious point of view, though, it really is useless.

Mike.

I just read on Magic Week ( http://www.magicweek.co.uk/ )

Mark Parker's latest illusion 180 is currently being produced in the States by Bill Smith's Magic Ventures. First of all your assistant enters the box, blades divide it, diagonally, into two (hands still visible), the top section slides up and over the lower section and is then lowered down... a rack of spikes is pushed through the whole lot... and finally the front doors are opened to reveal that your assistant has vanished (and who can blame her!). Sounds like another ingenious piece of illusion design from Mark Parker. For more information, together, with additional illustrations email markparker1@mac.com.

Sounds like a very similar scenario - I suspect that 'why did she go' and 'where to' will be the 2 questions not asked by the rapidly departing audience!