talkmagic.co.uk

I recently finished watching a number of dvds, and a number of them had routines based on misdirection. Examples include card under box, card to mouth etc. Would you call this magic? I personally wouldn't as the misdirection has become the effect in many of these routines. Surely if you use misdirection, it should be used 'under the radar'. The spectators shouldnt be aware of what and why you are doing something.
With an effect such as card to mouth, the specs beliefs about how it was achieved ('he put it in his mouth when I wasn't looking) are true. It may be entertaining, but is this magic?
A good example of such a reaction can be seen in 'fancy a pot of jam' where the spectators reaction is...'well done'.
Perhaps it is a matter of taste, but this kind of effect leaves me underwhelmed. A (rather daft) comparison (but one that kind of shows my point), would be a magician using the centre tear, and the climax being that you miraculously managed to steal the info "right under the audiences noses"...aren't I clever!

Tha majority of effects on 'Still Fancy A Pot Of Jam' rely on misdirection, none more blatantly than 'psychological deck vanish', and yet every trick I would consider fantastic magic.

Good misdirection is an art in itself, and deserves to be considered along with the various shuffles, glimpses, steals and controls that are essential to the success of an effect, rather than just as an entertaining side bit.

In a word, yes. Misdirection, if done well, can be used to create amazing magic. It is not magic in itself, the same as sleights are not magic, and gimmicks are not magic. These are tools of the magic. If you use them to make the seemingly impossible happen, and present it well, then this is undoubtedly magic.

The reactions on a pot of jam I think are mainly that of being dumbfounded and amazed, and politely english, especially as they are on camera. I don't think there's any doubt that the specs will go away remembering that magic for a long long time.

Good misdirection is an art in itself, and deserves to be considered along with the various shuffles, glimpses, steals and controls that are essential to the success of an effect, rather than just as an entertaining side bit.

I don't deny that misdirection is not an important skill. My pooint is that it shouldn't be apparent. At the end of a card trik the spec shouldn't know you used a D/L, glimpse, false shuffle or whatever, so should they know you misdirected them. In many of the effects mentioned, that is the case.

Derren Brown talks quite a lot about this in Absolute Magic, though getting a copy now if you don't have one yet is pretty darn hard.

Personally I'm slightly torn as well, because doing card under box and other similar effects is fun for me and the spec, but at the same time I have to think is it the kind of "real magic" experience I'm trying to offer the spectator; something that they will remember for the rest of their life rather than something fun on a night out.

AndyRegs wrote:

Good misdirection is an art in itself, and deserves to be considered along with the various shuffles, glimpses, steals and controls that are essential to the success of an effect, rather than just as an entertaining side bit.

I don't deny that misdirection is not an important skill. My pooint is that it shouldn't be apparent. At the end of a card trik the spec shouldn't know you used a D/L, glimpse, false shuffle or whatever, so should they know you misdirected them. In many of the effects mentioned, that is the case.

I'm not sure a lay person would know.

I use card to mouth at the end of my ACR, and times I have had people say things like 'how the hell did the card get there?' They swear blind they have watched your hands the whole time, so while it may look blatant to you or me I think to a lay spectator, done correctly, it just adds to the whole magic experience!

Card to mouth as an example: The spectator pushes thier card into the deck, then thier card vanashes and ends up in the magicians mouth. That sounds like magic to me. At the end of the day, its not the method that the spectator sees.

What is magic????

From a spectators point of view, they've just seen something for which there is no logical explaination. Now that's magic. Does it really matter if it was all done through misdirection? In my opinion that's as much a valid method as sleights, peaks or anything else and in many was requires much more skill to pull off.

Alot of magicians look at tricks from a magicians perspective and will often over look a simple method because it is so simple. I know I've done this a while ago I started putting more and more technically good tricks into my routines but the reactions I was getting weren't as good. I was confused until I started to look at the tricks from a spectators point of view, what do the percieve happening. It was soon obvious that some of the simple (to me) tricks were actually much much stronger than the more complex one's I'd been doing.

You have to look at these things in the same way that your average Joe will see them. Look at the effect and not just the method and then you can decide if it's magic. As for card to mouth, I've seen that done many times and when done well will still catch me off guard. So yes, it's magic.

Is this magic or just clever?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNSbcO86Zag

Instead of misdirection, why not just see it as 'direction'. You get the specs to look towards one logical area while you do the biz in another. Tap the table somewhere for emphasis, look at the 'wrong' area, ask a spec a question or compliment an item of their attire so all eyes concenrate on him/her. Body language and many other subtleties come into play and help.

Obviously a lot depends on your presentation. However, a lot of the presentations of effects mentioned, are themed around misdirection.
With the card under box, many use the line for the second phase(I think its used on fancy a pot of jam) about how they now know what to expect this time around, yet they STILL dont see the card go under the box. That to me is not magic. Would you ever say 'this time you know I am going to use a D/L, did you see it?'

Card to mouth as an example: The spectator pushes thier card into the deck, then thier card vanashes and ends up in the magicians mouth. That sounds like magic to me. At the end of the day, its not the method that the spectator sees.

Again, I do see your point, but are we also at risk of wearing rose tinted spectacle here. Is the spec thinking 'the card dematerialised and then rematrerialised in the magicians mouth,' or 'he somehow put it there without me seeing, even though I was watching him all along'.
I realise that this argument could be used with many tricks (and perhaps it should be), but surely the first and only idea the spec has about how the effect is achieved shouldn't be the actual one.

As for card to mouth, I've seen that done many times and when done well will still catch me off guard. So yes, it's magic.

Just because you are caught offguard does not make it magic.

Is this magic or just clever?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNSbcO86Zag

I've just watched it (no sound though I don't think it makes any difference). If that can be performed live, its magic, otherwise its clever.

To be honest, I don't really understand why it's not magic. I'm sure that there's not too many spectators who honestly believe that that single sponge ball really multiplied into 6 balls in their hands or that the coin really just went through a solid glass bottle. They know that you have tricked them in some way, some how.

What make these tricks any different to one that relies on misdirection?

If you think like that, are any tricks magic or are they all just clever?

What make these tricks any different to one that relies on misdirection?

If you think like that, are any tricks magic or are they all just clever?

I see your point completely, and it probably means you have to be ruthless with your effects. (You are right about the sponge balls by the way ). But compare the effect with a well presented version of OOTW (a self working effect), OOTW finds the spectator struggling to find any explanation, where as with many misdirection effects, the most obvious explanation is the reality.

My basic point is, the method should not be the effect.

But surely if the misdirection is performed properly and well, then the layman will not realize that he has been midirected (short of you saying "look over there while I put your card under the box")? How many laymen "know" about misdirection anyway? And if your particular layman knows about misdirection, then surely he would not get misdirected by you would he?

I don't really understand this thread.
If you produce a magical effect for someone, then how can it not be magic. Who cares how it was achieved. The spec doesn't.

How can card to mouth not be magical?
Is producing a coin from behind an ear not magical either. Because the spec surely knew that there wasn't a coin behind their ear, so you must have had it hidden in your hand somehow.