Franz Harary floats a guy between two buildings.
I looked at some of the old Criss Angel threads, and this trick looks a lot like those, but the twirling rope bit at 1:04 is what has me scratching my head on this one.
Any ideas?
Well, you never get to see the space between the illusionist and the floating guy, so it’s a safe bet that there’s a long support between them, flexible enough to sway gently, but strong enough to support him. That’s the reason he’s wearing that blanket/poncho thing: to hide the support.
As for the rope? Easy. Rope is flexible. When he twirled it around the guy, it simply wrapped itself around the support, just out of camera view. He couldn’t twirl it more than a couple times before it got noticable, and it would never work with a solid hoop.
Good observation. In fact, he twirled his arm exactly twice: once over his head and the second time it looked for sure as if he was trying to keep it looped around whatever support was used.
Also, when the view was from the illusionist’s side, he was obstructing your view of the support.
I don’t get these kind of magic videos, where they’re set up so the viewer sees the illusion, but the people there can see whats really going on. If they’re only trying to fool the people watching the video, why not just save a lot of time and money and just digitally composite in a guy floating between the buildings, whats the difference.
I agree, Bootis. I realize that a certain element of dishonesty is inherent to magic shows, but I think there’s a line that needs to be drawn here. If there’s an audience shown on screen, then the trick should be such that it works for the audience as well as for TV/internet viewers.
To me, the lack of “Wow! Gee whiz!” reactions on the other spectators was the biggest give away.
A long support from the building would have cast a shadow down the side of the building behind the floating man, like the ropes do. I vote for wires from above.
The jump rope bit negates that. A horizontal pole has the advantage that the rope can just wrap around it. The pole itself might be made of a transparent material.
Also notice how when the magician at the end pulls the guy from the gap and lowers him on the floor, there are several cuts in the video and the camera is zoomed in on the guy’s face? We never get a good look of the surroundings.
Look just under the armpit of the magician
Also the shadow of the pole is camoflaged in the folds of the purple jacket hanging over the edge. If you watch that jacket through the video, there’s a dark line that changes position. It might look like a fold but is probably the shadow of the pole. Other times the pole shadow is mingled with the shadow of the jacket.
I agree. One thing is illusionism and another video editing with FX pretending to be a documentary.
At least this guy looks like less of an asswipe than Criss Angel. God, how I hate that twat.
Wow that’s lame. So this is what passes for professional entertainment these days?
You mean like the shadow at 1:20 on the conveniently placed blue jacket; at 1:37 on the sitting guy’s hand; and very visible at 1:51, where they obviously gave up any remaining pretense of even trying to hide it?
This seems like the most logical explanation. Though, from other angles it looks more like the old crane-and-wires bit, which, if that’s the case, would necessitate doing the trick twice and editing the two parts together. Not that I’d be surprised if this were the case.
Franz Harary’s act is kind of a strange dichotomy. His stage show is full of cheesy girl-in-a-box type stuff, but then he does these big on-location illusions that – IF the videos are honest – are spectacularly convincing. An airplane vanishes from mid-air; two boats drive behind a third, the third boat drives away and the first two are gone; two guys hold up a small tarp between the camera and a parked military jet for about 2 seconds, they lower it and the jet is gone… (sorry I can’t provide links from my work computer.)
The fact that Harary is not much more famous for these seemingly impossible feats leads me to attribute it to editing. If not, I welcome any speculation on how those were done. But, echoing the thoughts of Bootis and Chronos, I think these go beyond the usual level of tacit deception between the magician and audience.
You’re right, I see it there.
Franz Harary also vanished the Space Shuttle on the “World’s Greatest Magic” series back in the lat 90’s. It also was an edited for video sequence and very obviously so.
I’ve met Franz and he’s a pretty nice guy, but I do have to wonder what is going through his head when he thinks he can pass off what he does on video as magic when there are many tells indicating video edits and trickery.
Ah, yes. Also, when they loop the rope – the first time around starts above the support, so it goes all the way around smoothly, but then you see that it’s impeded by something between the building and the subject.
The shadow cast by a supporting arm can be minimized (although probably not completely eliminated) by placing lights on the underside of the arm; they point downward and ‘fill in’ the shadow to some extent. It doesn’t have to be a perfect match; just enough to break up the sharp edges of the shadow.
Not that I think that they’re doing that here; just a general observation.
You make a good point, Bootis. Within the magic world, there is a lot of debate and discussion (but never any consensus) about what is or is not legitimate. Let’s distinguish between three kinds of big, spectacular illusions that are presented on TV. Type 1 is where the illusion could be done equally effectively in front of a live audience. Type 2 is where the illusion is performed for real, in front of the camera, but some of the supposed ‘spectators’ and ‘observers’ you see in the shot are actually seeing how the trick is done, or they themselves are part of the method! Type 3 is where the illusion requires the use of camera tricks, editing tricks or digital manipulation - what we can loosely call ‘post-production trickery’.
Of course, a magician deceives his audience, and hopefully in an enjoyable and entertaining way that creates a moment of astonishment. But not all kinds of ‘deception’ are the same, or embrace the same set of ethics. Usually, there is a shared framework of understanding between the magician and the audience, an understanding if you will about ‘the rules of the game’. If I stand on stage, ask someone to think of a number, and then show that I can read her mind, there is a shared understanding that the girl in the audience should not be a stooge or a plant, a secret confederate. Why? Because if she isn’t, I am using some sort of skill, talent or ability to create an illusion of telepathy. If she is, anyone could do it and there’s nothing to admire or appreciate. The end result may be similar, but if the understanding between performer and audience is intact, there is a world of difference.
So, back to large-scale illusions. No-one in the magic world has a problem with Type 1. Most people I know in the magic world dislike Type 3, because it seems to violate the shared understanding between the magician and the TV audience. Instead of watching some art or skill or ingenuity, they are watching the results of (say) digital animation.
What about Type 2? Well, within the magic world, there’s no consensus. Some see it as a ‘fair’ method, in that it doesn’t involve any post-production, while others think it’s ‘cheating’. Each to their own opinion.
One point I would make, in fairness to all, is that TV shows are the work of many people and many minds. Sometimes, the performer may not want to do things in an ‘illegitimate’ way, but he is under pressure from the producer to do so. There are some TV producers (in my experience) who really don’t care much about magic or about the ethics of TV presentation… all they demand is something bigger, bolder, more spectacular, something to get attention and win ratings. If the method involves ‘cheating’, they don’t care. Not all TV producers are like this, but some are. So it’s not always the ‘fault’ of the magician.
As for Franz Harary, he’s a good, creative and experienced working magician who does great live shows and entertains a lot of people. He does come up with some great ideas for big illusions for TV, and all credit to him and his team for the work they put in and the great magical moments they create. If you take issue with some of the ‘television’ methods he uses, well, do bear in mind that he also does a gazillion LIVE shows every year in theatres all around the world, and he does them very well.