talkmagic.co.uk

I think that unless you're doing exactly what you're claiming to get the result, you're lying and cheating. I don't remember where I read it, but I'm pretty sure a prominent name in magic/mentalism wrote that deciding to use certain techniques or not isn't about any sort of ethics or morals, it's about artistic values.

I more or less agree with that.

To answer the op, I personally wouldn't want to use stooges or camera tricks, but if the effect is good enough, I would go for it.

Johnny Wizz wrote:if a one way forcing deck is "cheating", so is a TT...

I think that the point is, we all 'cheat'. But some people are only prepared to cheat to a certain degree. For example, camera tricks are often considered to be unacceptable - but not by everyone. Trick card decks are sometimes thought badly of, but not by everyone (and card tricks, full stop, are despised by some but loved by many (I'm not trying to drag up that old discussion, by the way)).

In short, the initial question was simply posed to find out where everyone draws the line. Personally, I draw mine pretty low As for camera tricks, I'm in two minds. I'm not definitely for and not completely against. It's about entertainment, at the end of the day. I guess that if camera tricks are used too often then viewers will assume such trickery, which might spoil their enjoyment (the worst case scenario). Live acts could be seen as more impressive as a result, though, which appeals to me.

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?

I like this question. It gets me thinking that we cheat in magic anyway, so why should we stop at a certain point? We SHOULD just accept that a stooge is no worse than a TT, a one way force deck no worse than a stacked deck, a camera trick no worse than misdirection.

SHOULD and DO are completely different. I do have a problem with camera tricks. I just feel that if the magician is just relying on the fact that they can get the effect and reaction through editing, why should they make the effort to perform at all? Maybe that is why some of them don't "perform." They are worse than Youtubers, who at least show their work in a clip, without relying on everybody else to do their Techie bit to make it right.

If all those on Youtube had a crew that was as experienced as the ones used on TV, had their clips edited by them, maybe from a couple of dozen takes, would they be as good as David Blaine?

For me, it is the "LIVE" aspect of magic that makes it special. Use whatever props or stooges you want, to make it an entertaining show for the audience. Don't use editing and camera tricks to PRETEND they have enjoyed it.

Just my thoughts anyway, but it is an interesting question, which I thank you for.

MMM

I have a definite gut feeling about stoogery, but I can't fully follow the logic of it. It's kind of like learning English - you know the irregular verbs, but you don't necessarily understand the rules governing which are regular and which are irregular.

For instance. I love the Chris Angel effect where he pulls a woman apart. I think I accept this bit of stoogery as okay because after the first second or two of shock that the trick creates, the method is more or less exposed.

I hate the "arm through spectator" effect, because, although it has just the same gag quality, the trick doesn't carry with it the same sense of exposure.

I feel stoogework is somehow an abuse of trust between the audience and the magician. I think audience members understand that it is *all* trickery, but that there are boundaries. Where those boundaries lie is complicated. If you have four plants for a psychometry effect, then that would seem a clear crossing of a line, whether or not the audience is aware of it.

But...

There's an effect I read of recently which is designed to be performed in a bar or nightclub. At some point during the effect, the magician calls to the bar to request a glass of water because his throat is getting a little dry. A member of the staff walks on holding a tray with a jug of water and a glass on it. She places it on the table, transfers the jug and glass from the tray to the table, then takes the tray away. While she does this, she also switches out a prediction envelope for one that has been, while the show's been running, filled in with the correct answer.

This is where I run into difficulty. The above, I have no problem with. However, if an audience member was a plant and did a similar thing, I would. Somehow, the switcher being a member of the staff of the venue allows her to participate in the dirty work in a way that being a member of the audience she would not.

There's very little concrete logic at work here, and it's clear that performers each find their own level. I guess it's like morality in general. We learn through induction our own moral compass. As long as we can earnestly legitimise our actions to ourselves we're probably doing okay.

It seems to me like you dislike it when the audience members betray the trust of each other. I guess I can see your point, but honestly, it just seems like a good place to trick people...

Audience members trust other audience members more than the magician. That's natural. It's your individual decision to exploit this or not. I have no experience with stooges or even pre-show (never had an official gig to use said techniques in), but I remember an anecdote in Tarbell (I think...) in which an actor was playing the part of a magician in a play. As he was about to produce flowers, a heckler from the audience came to make sure there was no trickery. The audience got to see that the situation was fair due to his intrusion. The magician then produced flowers successfully.

Magicians were fooled, and when they asked the actor for the secret, the actor humbly said he was just an actor and the heckler was too.

The actor in Tarbell was actually another cast member of the play, and his character's persona was antagonistic to the performer, but the point holds.

Another example is when Houdini was doing his stage version of the needles and thread illusion - he had a huge crowd of people on stage, one of which was a dentist.

It's not necessary given the workings of the illusion, but the dentist could easily have done the required dirty work to pull off the effect, under the guise of examining his mouth.

I think some of this depends on people's definition of a stooge, to me what Mr_Grue was describing was the use of an assistant rather than a stooge. Although I've never done any big stage performances where I've used one I can imagine that they could be very useful. A stooge in my mind is somewhat different, a stooge is a person (possibly someone who's been called onto stage to help you with a trick) who's believed by the rest of the audience to be one of them. As opposed to the assistant, who never claims to be just a member of the audience.

My views on stooges are changing, I used to be in the camp of magicians who say that they'd never use a stooge and that it's cheating, I'd always just skip over any trick in a book that used one. But now I'm starting to see that magic is more about entertainment for my audience then me showing off my rather limited skill set. I don't like the idea of having the effect purely down to use of a stooge, for example a drawing duplication where the stooge drawsa prearranged drawing, that's not good for the performer or magic as a whole. But if an entertaining effect can be pul;led off with a more subtle use of a stooge, perhaps switching something out or influencing something mid way through a routine which also involves innocent spectators, I'd go down that route.

DominicRougier wrote:The actor in Tarbell was actually another cast member of the play, and his character's persona was antagonistic to the performer, but the point holds.

I knew that but forgot to write it, making my whole point useless...

Thanks for adding the necessary detail.

I'm of the opinion that anything goes, as long as it's legal and not TOO immoral. Stooges, camera tricks, anything.

I think the whole idea about cheating is a strange one. The one thing that ties us all together as performers, be we cardies, or coinies, or mentalists, or psychic entertainers, is that we're all lying. Noone here can actually do everything they claim to be able to do. Magic *is* lying, without it you're a juggler, or (god forbid) one of those XCM guys you see on youtube all the time.

That's why I don't see how forcing a card when you say it's a free choice is any "lower" than a one way force deck and saying it's a normal deck (although it is often less practical). At some point down the line there HAS to be a lie in their to make it seem magical.

Using stooges or camera tricks doesn't mean that what you're presenting isn't a trick, it just changes WHO the trick is done on. For example, if I was performing for a whole group of people, and I could convince one of them to act as a stooge for me and feed me information beforehand in order to do a piece of mindreading or whatever then sure, for that one person me reading their thoughts isn't going to be that big a deal, but for everyone ELSE in that group I'm a bloody miracle worker.

That's a slightly forced example, it's not actually practical to do that most of the time, you can't trust most laypeople not to blab, but it illustrates the point - that magic happens in the eye of the people watching as much as it happens for the person the trick is being done on. Camera tricks make magicians seem a lot better than they really are, and THAT is the trick they are pulling on the general public. It's no different to magic tricks that utilise dual reality.

Well, if someone does contact mind reading, hypnosis, and non-mystical pendulum work, they could do a decent show without having to lie...

That's a good point, although I imagine even in that instance they'd still come up with some explanation or other, and I doubt it'll contain the words "ideomotor" or "muscle reading"...

Serendipity wrote:I'm of the opinion that anything goes, as long as it's legal and not TOO immoral. Stooges, camera tricks, anything.

I completely agree with everything you wrote in your post - although I'll avoid discussions about degrees of morality

Personally I don't care what you use. My limits are different than the next guys.
I just use the idea of "selling out" for this. If selling out is doing something for money that you wouldn't do for free, then it's an unacceptable method if you wouldn't feel happy about selling the effect as it stood.

I thought that this thread was about limbo dancing when i first saw the thread heading

Stooge's are like chilli flakes , use them sparingly or you will get burnt !

I do not have a problem with using a stooge , you have to get your hand's dirty sometime's & its part of the business.My problem with stooge's is where do you find a good stooge? Really!

What make's a good stooge and where is the local stooge store

I'd say all's fair except camera tricks. You're supposed to be showing off your magic skills, not your film editing and special effects skills.

That said, a strategic dip of the hands just off camera range for a moment is fair enough. That's no more "cheaty" than dipping them below a tabletop, for instance. It's not a camera trick, just using the camera in place of a spectator's eye.

The main point of it all is to be entertaining, and if the best way to be entertaining is to have a stooge or confederate at certain moments, then so be it.