talkmagic.co.uk

As a forum of magicians, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

To me, the artistry of the magician is the ability to make a switch, a move or a sleight, without the audience realising that the mechanics of the trick were carried out. The sense of wonder when the magician shows the chosen card in a wallet comes from the audience thinking the magician never went near the wallet when he must have done at some point. Clever!

People watch magic for different reasons. Personally, I like to watch magic as if it is a puzzle to be solved. I loved the recent "Fool Us" show where Penn and Teller were watching the magic in exactly the way I do, that is to say, they enjoyed the magic but spent the time afterwards trying to work it out.

But I noticed a few points where a clever, sneaky move was masked by a shot showing the audience clapping the previous trick.

There were a few cutaways in the show, and it seems to happen a lot when magic is shown on TV. Without revealing any secrets, lets discuss one, but I'm not criticising this trick, or this programe individually, it seems to happen all the time.

Let's take Michael Vincent's act as an example. He does a number of moves and sleights during the "off beats" and when he reveals the aces, visibly changing in front of our eyes, it's beautiful. We know it's not real magic, and the hardcore can rewind and watch it again, but there's nothing to be gained by doing so because he's so accomplished at what he's doing. It was beautiful. I watched it again and again, and have no idea how he did it. That's real magic.

Now, (without revealing any secrets in this forum post), we know that he "rung in a cooler", not just because there's no other way he could have done that last section without it, but also because Penn told us. So he needs a way to do the switch and no doubt he practiced this many times so he could get away with it without being detected. I'm confident his switch would have been as impressive and undetectable as everything else he did.

What the viewers at home saw was that the camera cut away to show the audience applauding the previous trick. When the camera returned to Vincent he was sat down with the deck in view.

I think this spoiled the performance a bit.

For example, if I want to pull a rabbit out of a hat, I need to show the hat is empty, then somehow I've got to get the rabbit in there without anyone spotting me doing it. If you cut to the audience at the moment I make the drop, then there's no reason to work at making it an invisible switch - I can just lift a rabbit into the hat in full view, no practice or skill needed, because no-ones seeing it.

To me, the magic is in how the magician performs the sleights undetected. If you cut away at that point, the sleight could have been terrible and messy, but the audience won't know so it removes the skill, the hours of practice and also short changes the audience who can't solve the puzzle because they are not seeing the whole performance.

So I wondered what people think. Should a magic act on TV be shown in full without edits, just as the live audience sees, or is it acceptable to cut away to an audience shot at the point the sleight is carried out?

The main difference between a live performance and a recorded one (TV/YouTube/etc) is that the live audiences can be misdirected. Those who watch a recorded performance can be too, but the problem is that recordings can be replayed. So you can loop a performance, focus on the performer's hands (or other element of the trick) and eventually work out the method.

Clever cut-aways don't spoil the effect for innocent viewers, they just block the efforts of those trying to work out the method. I think that is a legitimate use of editing. It would be entirely different if, say, the camera cut away while some unfeasible switch was made - one that would not fool the studio audience.

The director cutting away at the pivotal point is similar to the live audience's eyes looking at the wrong place at the pivotal point

TV, with the advent of iPlayer, youtube and PVRs make it easy for someone who wants to work out how a trick is done to rewind and play back again and again at 2x zoom. A magician's nightmare when your trick relies on misdirection

So spoil the performance? No. It enhanced it. The director has done what your brain would naturally do. So rather than upset, I'm happy that the director knew what he was doing

I think that the job of editing should be to mimic natural misdirection. While tempting, being able to rewind to catch the move is a little bit like exposure in a way. As long as the editing isn't taken to an extreme, I believe it's nescessary.

Regards
Sean

The job of "editing" - or vision mixing is the correct term - in shows like the studio based Penn And Teller Fool Us Show is not to hide sleights or secret moves but to maintain the pace of the show to keep the viewers excited and gripped. It is very unlikely the Director/Vision Mixer have any idea where the secret moves or sleights take place, they are just cutting the pictures to create a visually exciting, well paced television show.


However on the other hand I have seen television shows where magic is filmed to members of the public in the street and it appears that it has all been shot from one or occasionally two handheld cameras (ie reshot using the same people from different angels a number of times) and then edited together afterwards. These always look very suspect to me, especially as the folks in the scene are all pretending they have never seen the trick done before, yet it is probably the fourth time they've seen it as the camera is moved to get it again from different angles.

While the editing should ideally be done to mimic misdirection, I suspect that most magic shows are indeed mixed for pace and interest.

Dumpster, I got thoroughly confused trying to follow your logic about short-changing the audience. You say that the sleights should be perfect, but also that it's important for the audience to see them and work out the puzzle. If it is actually possible to get the sleights so good that they are undetectable, what is the point of seeing them?

The truth is that many sleights are undetected because they are done at the right time, so what you are actually proposing destroys the magic (on your own terms of magic being undetected sleights).

I then realised that what you actually meant was "I don't like not being able to 'burn' the performer, because I like to watch magic as puzzles to be 'solved'."

I am sure you are not alone in that opinion, but it is the minority view for TV shows. I think that good magic should be about performance and entertainment, not providing other magicians with technical displays that can be analysed for methods. That is what magic clubs are for.

Like the others have said, with this new age of rewind and rewatch video people can watch it over and over again to spot a method. Leaving a few in is good, as it would allow the layman (or woman) to seem like they have worked something out. Personally I have no problem with cutting out sleights and moves if it is done well, the problem comes when hidden pre-show work is done, to me that is unfair and goes against the assumption the audience makes with regards to your honesty about what you are doing.

Part-Timer wrote:
Dumpster, I got thoroughly confused trying to follow your logic about short-changing the audience. You say that the sleights should be perfect, but also that it's important for the audience to see them and work out the puzzle. If it is actually possible to get the sleights so good that they are undetectable, what is the point of seeing them?

Sorry if unclear.

I see the magic audience in two groups, those that just want to see the magic and be fooled, and those that want to try and work it out. The Michael Vincent routine was magical to me because he's so good at what he does that I couldn't work out how he did it, no matter how many times I watched it.

So to me, the cutaway wasn't needed - I'm fairly sure that however he did the switch it would have been as seamless as the rest of the act. That;s why I feel the cutaway cheapened it. It's almost like a camera trick. If you bring editing, vision mixing and clever angles into the mix, you may as well bring CGI in as well. The beauty of magic when performed well is that it's there, right in front of you and it's real.

Jurrasic Park shows an island with actual dinosaurs running about and causing havok for the people who came to visit. This was made in 1993 and whilst revolutionary at the time, it's commonplace now to have completely impossible situations convincingly captured on film - see 2012 for an example that you can film anything you can think of.

So if you use any technique that would not work in a live scenario, the skill, the presentation and the artistic merit are all removed in my opinion. Did you feel the disappointment I did, for example, when David Blaine's levitation was revealed? The explanation disappointed not only because it seemed he was cheating, but also it undermined all the proper magic he'd performed earlier. ANYONE could have performed that levitation, as long as they hired an appropriate digital edit suite to remove the wires. David Blaine is very good at card magic, but his skills and ability as a performer were wasted in that trick.

So that's my opinion anyway - if you're going to hide the magical method via careful performance and skill, then that's what magic's all about. But if you use cutaways and careful angles, you may as well go the whole hog and use CGI. Look out for Micheal Vincents Pteradactyl to Wallet - coming soon from Alakazam.

(sorry to keep mentioning MV, no disrespect intended - he's amazing - it's just that I used his trick as the example earlier.)

Dumpster wrote:

Part-Timer wrote:
Dumpster, I got thoroughly confused trying to follow your logic about short-changing the audience. You say that the sleights should be perfect, but also that it's important for the audience to see them and work out the puzzle. If it is actually possible to get the sleights so good that they are undetectable, what is the point of seeing them?

Sorry if unclear.

I see the magic audience in two groups, those that just want to see the magic and be fooled, and those that want to try and work it out. The Michael Vincent routine was magical to me because he's so good at what he does that I couldn't work out how he did it, no matter how many times I watched it.

So to me, the cutaway wasn't needed - I'm fairly sure that however he did the switch it would have been as seamless as the rest of the act. That;s why I feel the cutaway cheapened it. It's almost like a camera trick. If you bring editing, vision mixing and clever angles into the mix, you may as well bring CGI in as well. The beauty of magic when performed well is that it's there, right in front of you and it's real.

Jurrasic Park shows an island with actual dinosaurs running about and causing havok for the people who came to visit. This was made in 1993 and whilst revolutionary at the time, it's commonplace now to have completely impossible situations convincingly captured on film - see 2012 for an example that you can film anything you can think of.

So if you use any technique that would not work in a live scenario, the skill, the presentation and the artistic merit are all removed in my opinion. Did you feel the disappointment I did, for example, when David Blaine's levitation was revealed? The explanation disappointed not only because it seemed he was cheating, but also it undermined all the proper magic he'd performed earlier. ANYONE could have performed that levitation, as long as they hired an appropriate digital edit suite to remove the wires. David Blaine is very good at card magic, but his skills and ability as a performer were wasted in that trick.

So that's my opinion anyway - if you're going to hide the magical method via careful performance and skill, then that's what magic's all about. But if you use cutaways and careful angles, you may as well go the whole hog and use CGI. Look out for Micheal Vincents Pteradactyl to Wallet - coming soon from Alakazam.

(sorry to keep mentioning MV, no disrespect intended - he's amazing - it's just that I used his trick as the example earlier.)

You seem to be missing the point, magic is not usually performed as a puzzle to work out and although some people would rewind and watch someone again and again to work out how an effect was achieved most watch to be entertained. If a camera was continually focused on the magicians hands for the duration it would be boring and un-natural. As a magician misdirection is used to complete and effect but the whole act is there to entertain the audience.

If people want to just watch hands then got to Youtube there are plenty of hands to watch and solve puzzles.

TV shows also employ "magical consultants", these guys will explain to the director that at certain times, there will be certain angles that are not allowed, this will all be covered in rehearsal.(because it's not only on camera talent that benefit from dry runs) Without these guys, most magic shows would be filmed from behind.