Gosh, when you have to explain 'em.
Yeah, they should have left that way down below the ocean.
mmm
Yeah, this seems to me like cheating…
Suppose instead of blind witnesses, Jadro just used a verbal cheat. He could ask a bunch of observers if they had seen any of the people walking off the set while the curtain was up.
And they could all , in total honesty, say “no, we absolutely declare that not a single person walked off the set!”
And the reason is simple–they ran off the set.
It’s totally true, right? But to me, it’s a cheap trick.
Also, using blind people is dishonest and violates the rules, because you aren’t supposed to use stooges . A blind person who is pretending to be an official “observer”–is a stooge, who is in on the trick, not an impartial participant.
It would be like asking me to observe and judge a debate, when the debate is conducted in a foreign language which I dont understand. Sure, I could say declare that neither side convinced me of their proposition, so they both lose the debate. But I’m not a fair observer.–I’m a stooge.
No because he made the statue reappear before they left. And it’s not like it was all open around, there were curtains.
Oh no, that was televised live. Him sitting lotus and flying across the canyon. Filmed by a helicopter. And presumably another helicopter just above camera view.
I tend to agree for myself that escapism feels different, though you have to consider the change in culture and audience experience. At the time, escapism was very much a wonder, and he got out of things like jails as well as handcuffs and straight jackets. Plus milk cans, water tanks, the lot.
Escapism still plays a role in some magic acts, adding an element of danger and time constraint. But audiences are a bit more savvy. It’s exactly like the comments about what constitutes cheating. When the audience in general feels something is a cheap gimmick, it fails to entertain. Knowing a lot of escapism involves hidden picks, gimmicked restraints, and confederates makes it no longer entertaining.
Also, Houdini did a lot more than escspism. He was a real student of magic and an innovator. It’s just magic has moved on, building on his acts.
Houdini was also a master of promotion, and his interest in calling out the fraudsters of spiritualism was another role that got him fame.
The problem with close-up magic is how to make it play on a large stage, and present it for TV. But that challenge has largely been worked out. The trick is changing audience mindsets about the skill of the magician. Ducking down a trapdoor undiscovered is the same principle of deception, but is a different skill. Sleight of hand is a skill that takes tons of practice to be able to do well, and it helps if you start with good finger and hand dexterity.
I had someone show me how to do a one- handed card deck split and worked on it long enough to get the mechanics, but I’m far from smooth or consistent.
I took up juggling for a while, working 6 or 7 months on 3 beanbags to be able to go more than 2 or 3 tosses without dropping. But showing someone that is a real let down when their reaction is ho-hum, can you juggle 4?
Being able to appreciate the physical skill involved in good closeup magic is something a lot of audiences don’t have. That sense of wonder at “how” can be replaced by appreciation of the effort and skill, but novice audiences don’t have that.
Yes, and that really turned me off on David Blaine. Showing us at home something fundamentally different than what the actual audience saw is a “cheat”. It’s no different than watching Dr. Strange whirl his fingers or Spiderman swing on webs, or Jurassic World dinosaurs run around. It can be entertaining, but it’s no longer magic.
That’s the thing. I don’t think the reaction to magic requires a suspension of disbelief at all. It’s not that we can see it’s all fake but willingly pretend otherwise. Instead we see something that appears impossible, and yet have trouble disbelieving it.
With really good magicians, this can even happen when they tell you how the trick is done. You still have trouble disbelieving the illusion. That’s what make it an illusion. See also “optical illusions” which we have trouble not seeing even when we know it’s an illusion.
In fact, I think that is the difference in how audiences engage with magic versus these other situations, and why we put up with actors and special effects in theater/movies/etc. but not in magic. It is what makes magic different from fiction.
Sure, magic will throw in that bit of patter, which is fiction. But the trick itself isn’t. It’s an illusion. And illusions look real even when you try to disbelieve them. You don’t have to try not to disbelieve them.
Well, except when you’re watching little Jamie’s first magic show.
I’ve heard it said that stage patter, timing, and misdirection are hugely important in auditorium magic, and that it can be considered a specialized type of acting. I think this is apt, since merely being able memorize and recite lines doesn’t mean you can act.
Nonetheless, magic also has a physical skill component, much like playing musical instruments. A high school acquaintance had no particular charisma I could see, but he wowed us with his close-up card tricks. In one, it seemed that he merely rubbed his thumb along the side of a shuffled deck, and then the deck was in order by suit and rank. (Or something like that; I don’t remember the exact object of the trick.) In medieval times they would have burned him.
Stage magicians may do nothing but tell the audience a story. It is wonderfully entertaining to watch skillful prestidigitation but it’s not the only type of magic. In stage shows the assistants and rigged devices may perform all of the physical activity but the magic emerges from the entire act. Magic occurs when you think you’ve seen something that cannot be, it doesn’t matter how it was done.
I think this is a true statement.
I also think there is something missing in this discussion. I think there might be two types of people: those who see magic and feel wonder and amazement, and those who see magic and are frustrated by not knowing how it’s done.
The first is probably the bulk of the audience. They are largely… call it magically naive. There’s not a lot of real info on how much is done. These are the folks with the big reactions you see.
The second group - the frustrated crowd - they’re the ones motivated to learn more about the techniques so they know the tricks. A lot of them become magicians at least at the amateur level, but many just learn enough to relieve that frustration.
However, and many magicians attest to this, the gain of information about methods leads to a loss of that amazement at the impossible.
For many, that loss of amazement can be replaced by an appreciation of skill. Watching well-done magic can be entertaining for how the magician achieves the result.
I think this is the base for the crowd that thinks some types of magic aren’t as entertaining, because their appreciation is based on watching a honed craft. Thus up-close magic, cards, coins, etc have more appeal, because of the recognition of the time and effort involved to be good at it. Like my juggling anecdote.
I think this is also the base that feel that some kinds of tricks are “cheating”, because there’s no skill in paying shills to lie about what they saw. If you can’t trust the witnesses, then the act becomes something anybody can do, and there’s no mystery.
Which is the point. Your magically naive audience will lose interest as well if they think the trick is just shills. There’s no more wonder, no more amazement.
So, the only rule might be to entertain, but “cheating” corrupts the audience perception of all magic acts, and makes magicians have to overcome the bad audience perception before they even begin their act.
This thread reminds me of Yet Another Awful David Copperfield “trick”. He makes a train car “disappear”.
Video. Note that the crowd doesn’t look up at the car! Even when it hovers off to the side almost over some people.
Yeah, those folk are clearly not in on it. 