talkmagic.co.uk

Following a discussion in another thread, I thought it might be fun to discuss how sneaky you are prepared to be in order to produce a good effect.

For example, would you resort to a stooge? Happy to use a one-way force deck? Camera tricks? Or are skillful sleights the only way you are prepared to work?

Stooge - if practical. And if it was more than having someone just agree to anything I say.

One way force deck - of course!

Camera tricks - nah. Unless I was making the camera disappear of fogging the film with the name of a selected card.

Pete

I'd do whatever it takes - but at the same time "cheating" as little as possible.

Camera tricks, specifically cut-aways have their pluses and minuses. The major issue with the Mark Wilson style. single-camera shots, is that visually they can make more for some really boring television.

On the other hand the idea of using stooges and cut-aways to produce an effect which is entirely different from what was actually happening is setting yourself up for a fall.

I think, as long as the effect remains mostly the same - and people go away feeling that what they've seen on camera is broadly what they experienced then you're pretty good to go.


Then again, I'm not a big fan of the "instant-stooge" methodology either - especially since I had someone I was doing some close up for describe being on stage with a show, hold up a sign which had a note on the back saying something like "Go on, be a sport, do xxx for me"... he did what he was asked and the effect came off, but he went away completely disillusioned with magic, and many years later he feels betrayed in some way.

There's a difference between camera tricks and appropriate editing.

Mr Blaine's infamous ruse of shooting a street levitation twice from different angles then cutting them together so that they appear to be from the same performance is just plain stinky in my book.

Other examples I've seen on TV where the editor has 'trimmed the fat' from a longer piece of mentalism, cut away uneccessary talk and exposition (while, in the process, conveniently removing the moment where information was written down, handled or switched) is, to my mind, whiffy. Nothing has been added, but information has been removed to give an overall false impression to the viewer. They might as well cut the few moments it takes for the performer to walk off-screen and make it look like he's just disappeared.

However, I think it is acceptable for the editor to cut to a long shot or audience reaction when the magician is doing some sneaky sleight. The performer won't perform a classic pass while a live audience is burning his or her hands, so it's not unreasonable for the cameras and editing to go with the natural flow of misdirection.

In No Camera Tricks, Richard Osterlind talks about using the live monitors in TV studios to tell when your hands are out of frame, thereby giving you perfect cover for sneaky moves. It's about using your working environment to aid the performance - not using technology to create or correct your performance.

Pete

When it comes to video, I think what a spec sees should be the effect as it appeared at the time, edited perhaps for length and to cut in different cameras. There was a HUGE argument last year (or was it the year before - I forget now) about one or two of Angel's effects misleading the TV audience by being edited into something that clearly couldn't have happened at the time.

For some reason, a scene from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency just popped into my head (thank you subconscious). If I remember correctly, there's a college dinner, to which one of the alumni has brought his rather bored young daughter. One of the masters amuses her by making a salt pot disappear. He then smashes an ancient, sealed Greek pot and the salt pot falls out. The explanation involves a time machine, a potter in ancient Greece, plenty of hanging about and a lot of sunblock. Er... what was I saying? Oh yes, I remember now: the point is that the spectator only sees the effect. The cause can be anything you like - including time travel if you like.

In my opinion, in a stage situation anything goes as long as it doesn't destroy the effect, as Tomo says, the method is immaterial, the effect is everything (big argument over on iTricks about exactly that recently).

Camera tricks are a hard one, I know consciously that I should just consider them another utility device like a TT or anything but at the same time, I dislike the idea of an effect purely relying on camera edits and tricks but as long as the audience doesn't become aware of this I can't justify why.

To everyone the line is just a completely arbitrary point where they stop, but it is a performers choice, there's no right or wrong to it. I'm of the opinion that either everything's in or everything's out, arbitrary lines in the sand don't interest me much, it's all a lie.

pcwells wrote:Mr Blaine's infamous ruse of shooting a street levitation twice from different angles then cutting them together so that they appear to be from the same performance is just plain stinky in my book.

In No Camera Tricks, Richard Osterlind talks about using the live monitors in TV studios to tell when your hands are out of frame, thereby giving you perfect cover for sneaky moves. It's about using your working environment to aid the performance - not using technology to create or correct your performance.

Blaine uses tonnes of camera work in those series, some good, some bad. The levitation editing was ridiculous. However, using the camera to his advantage so a top change isn't in shot is perfectly acceptable in my book. Otherwise, all you'll get is people just playing back and burning his hands.

Stephan Minch wrote long ago that there is no low to which a true mentalist will not stoop in order to create a seeming miracle

I tend to lean heavily on that philosophy

When i first learned the trick where you rub ashes on your arm to reveal the spectators selected card, i was having trouble getting my force to work, so when i was at a party, someone who had seen me do it once asked me to show it to everyone. I said i would later and before i did i spoke to another friend who knew how it was done and told him to nod at me if I forced the correct card. I've since become more confident in my ability to force cards and no longer have to do this

What is low about a one way forcing deck???

I suppose if you present it as if they are all different cards then some people may not like it.

since i just learned it, I'm using my mom as a stooge for control (Wayne Houchins version) at a family get together next weekend.

flaw07 wrote:I'm using my mom as a stooge for control (Wayne Houchins version) at a family get together next weekend.

I think that stooges can provide amazing effects in family get-togethers. It could be something as simple as looking in a certain direction to indicate the thing you will predict (e.g. Window = Hearts; Door = Diamonds; Ceiling = Clubs; Table = Spades).

In terms of how far you want to go to pre-prepare there's some good stuff in Session (Joel Givens). A good proportion of the material is very situation specific but as is the nature of that sort of effect, pretty miraculous. There's a peek that is mentioned at the beginning of the book then left to rattle around your brain until right at the end when you learn the method. And throw the book at the wall.

Pcwells and Craig summed up my thoughts really, as a rule my innate laziness means I lean towards impromtu material but on the occassions when I've set stuff up it usually goes with a bang, so it's worth it now and again. If you frequent a particular establishment you can arrange matters days, week, or even months in advance for that real impossible feeling.

??? wrote:I suppose if you present it as if they are all different cards then some people may not like it.

What I am trying to say is that if a one way forcing deck is "cheating", so is a TT, so are marked decks, so are stcked decks, so is the simple "you do as I do" trick which I present as a mind reading effect.