D’oh!
I made a boo-boo. I wrote, “the audience did not expect to see perspective”. I should have said, “the audience did not expect to have parallax.”
Obviously they had perspective!
No, what he had was a good team. His assistants all had robes on. His shadow walked through the wall, behind the curtains, as he slipped into a robe like the rest of the team holding up the curtains. The cameramen didn’t put too much emphasis on showing any individual member. He’s now an indistiguishable member of the team, goes around the wall, slips behind the curtain, removes and hides his robe, and presto! He’s walked through the Great Wall of China.
Houdini himself worked in a great time when handcuffs weren’t quite as strong as they are now. He could have half the audience link handcuffs to him going all the way up his arms. He just busts to first few and slides the bigger ones back down and off him. Not to say Houdini wasn’t great at what he did, but sometimes shoddy material helped him immensly.
I added the italics above. Er, have you seen the Great Wall? It’d take quite a while to walk “around”. They weren’t on either extreme end of its 1500+ mile length. As I recall, there were separate crews on either side of the wall section, and spectators stood on the wall itself. No one but Dave moved from one side to the other.
I’m plenty familiar with the “magician concealing himself as a member of the stage crew” scheme, and it’d work great on a regular ol’ wall, but I don’t think (unless my memory is really faulty) that that’s what happened here.
“The English magician P.T. Selbit (born Percy Thomas Tibbles)
gained fame for two unusual illusions. In 1914 he walked through a
brick wall on stage. This illusion was updated in 1986 when David
Copperfield walked through the Great Wall of China in a
performance that was seen on television.”
So why couldn’t they do those tricks the same way?
Because the structure of the Great Wall, which Max Torque describes above, render the method used by Selbit impossible.
Copperfield uses Selbit’s methods for his Wall Walk in his stage show (which I think is what Enderw23 might be describing). In that illusion, the audience watches Dave’s shadow move through a wall erected on a stage platform.
The guy who plays Lurch on Addams Family movie was his shadow double.He was hid in platform.Copperfield hid in steps.The light is at an angle so his shadow will not show until he gets close to the front.David snuck out steps whenthey were removed.Cameras did not show that part.David rode on the camera crane to the other side and climbed down to get inside hollow steps on other side.The sheet had a wire mask.The hands were the assistants.Hands on top were fake.It took Jim Steinmeyer (illusion designer) 2 years to work everything out.The rest are shadow principles.
Welcome to the Dope DonJarrard. You have responded to a 22 year old post. The person you responded to hasn’t been heard from in 21 years. He probably isn’t paying attention anymore. But feel free to stick around and join in the fun anyway.
Steinmeyer is famous inside the magic community. For those outside, he’s written several books on magic history that are musts.
To start with I’d suggest Hiding the Elephant: How Magicians Invented the Impossible and Learned to Disappear.
Magicians’ Code?
Remember David Blaine’s levitation ‘trick’?
Peppridge Farm remembers. Blaine did a simple trick (the Balduci IIRC) that made him appear a few inches off the ground. They filmed actual reactions to this. Then, they edited in footage of Blaine being lifted on an invisible wire. The final special showed Blaine levitating many feet off the ground, and then the reaction shot.
Magicians are liars. ‘The card you picked of your own free will’ ‘an empty top hat’ ‘a perfectly ordinary quarter’. A good magician tells us believable and entertaing lies.
Um, yeah. Did you think they really did magic?
It still seems to me that there should be limits on what lies a magician tells. I mean, nobody considers Ian McKellan a magician, for his portrayal of Gandalf. But Copperfield or Blaine use the same techniques.
Nobody wants to think Ian McKellan is a magician, they want to think he is a wizard with actual wizard powers, and everybody understands how he appears to perform magical deeds. People want magicians to fool them. They may not think of it that way, but that’s what they will get. They want to see magic where they don’t know how it works, but hopefully realize it’s not magic. Magic is lying, if it entertains people there’s no need for any limits. The one lie that shouldn’t be tolerated from magicians is a claim that they are actually wizards that perform supernatural feats. That’s when they cross over into fraud.
I want to be impressed at a magician’s skill. Penn and Teller do some tricks where they show off exactly how they are doing things, and it doesn’t take any of the magic away–it impresses me all the more.
A trick which is all computer generated or where everyone is a stooge requires no skill on the part of the magician. Call it “magic” if you want, but it’s unimpressive and I think less of the performer for pretending that it’s at the same level of magicians that don’t rely on those things.
I don’t mind being lied to by a magician, but being lied to by his stooge crosses that limit, in my mind.
. . . And some magicians now call themselves illusionists instead of magicians. IIRC, Siegfried and Roy called themselves illusionists.
When it comes to showing magic on TV, I think there is at least one more: don’t lie about what the trick looked like if you were there. The second we think a magician may have just used CGI or camera tricks, the whole fun of “being tricked” or “seeing a display of skill” goes away.
Similarly, you should not lie about not using stooges or actors. That also takes away from skill and mystery. If everyone just sees what you did and says “they paid the guy to say that,” the magic* of the experience is lost.
Also, I’d say your limit also means that a magician should not trick people into believing in pseudoscience, even if that pseudoscience is not presented as supernatural. Sure, you can do it as part of the patter (the story that everyone knows is fake). But not at any other time.
That is, BTW, why I don’t like Darren Brown. He will dress up his tricks as dubious psychological techniques, like him having used subliminal messaging, brainwashing, “the wisdom of crowds,” etc. And he will lie about not using stooges, camera tricks, and likely even actors. I’m also pretty sure he has lied about having hypnotized people beforehand.
*Pun very much intended.
If you can tell they used CGI or camera tricks then they aren’t very good at magic. So what difference does it make if they did and you can’t tell?
Most magic is lame as hell if you take the magician’s skill out of the picture. I’ll just watch a movie if I wanted to be entertained by CGI and actors.
I was going to write something identical to BigT about Derren Brown. His pseudoscience schtick sucks. He claims that “I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty,” but frankly I think that’s untrue. At the least, he does not maintain a clear distinction between “in character” explanations vs. out of character. It’s obvious that he exploits this ambiguity to create a certain persona. I assume that he just relies on the worst and cheapest tricks possible and thus there’s nothing impressive about what he does.
The name of the skill is ‘fooling you’. If you don’t know how it’s done what difference does it make? You are assuming that all magic that fools you is due to some high level of skill other than lying.
I already know magic isn’t real. There’s no fooling involved under any conditions.
Any sort of mentalism trick is trivial when stooges are involved. You just agree to the guessed card or whatever in advance. It’s utterly boring if that is a possibility. Same as if they remapped a new face to the card in post-production.