Not true. In the end credits Val Valentino is clearly identified as one of the producers of the show. He may or may not be the current Masked Magician. I find the show pretty innocuous in terms of harming the magician’s trade. The tricks can be found in many magic books and the “reveals” get very repetitive after a while.
The pseudo-justification of ‘seeking to stimulate magicians to create new illusions’ is, indeed, bogus, for at least two good reasons. (1) It may take months or years to devise a new illusion, but it only takes two minutes to expose it on one of these ‘masked magician’ TV shows. Even a fervent devotion to magical creativity cannot hope to keep pace with this level of exposure and ruination. It’s a bit like blowing up all the bridges to stimulate the building of new ones. Destruction is always easier and faster than construction. (2) New magical innovation is going on all the time, and it did not need any stimulus from the masked magician. (I know that to outsiders it may seem as if there is little new magical creativity, because one often sees magicians repeating the same kinds of tricks. But this is because some magicians will always prefer tricks that are traditional, tried and tested; not because no-one is inventing good new ones.)
To be fair to all concerned, when Valentino eventually agreed to be interviewed in one of the leading magic magazines, he did not rely much on the justification of ‘stimulating new creativity’. The whole story is a bit long-winded, but in a nutshell… when he first got involved the show was going to be about the history of magic, with very little ‘exposure’ of secrets. As the production meetings carried on, the tone shifted towards just doing a show exposing secrets. Valentino says he realised the producers were determined to do a show exposing magic tricks, and he felt he could exercise more damage limitation by being on the inside, being part of it, than he could by just criticising and complaining from the sidelines once the show was on air. He says he did his best to steer the producers away from exposing methods that he felt would really harm working pros, and towards methods that either were not in current use, or were inferior to the methods actually used by contemporary illusionists.
From what was going on at that time it seems the answer was “no.”
Let’s try to put this in the context of the time so please bear with me.
I am relying on memory of a Wall Street Journal story that is over 10 years old, so any clarification is welcome.
The Wiki article on Valentino starts a sentence…“When he finally revealed himself at the end of the fourth show…” and it sounds like he sorta planned it that way.
That’s not how I remember it at the time. The first couple of installments of the Fox program had hit and there were apparantly quite a number of professional magicians who were royally mad. They wanted to know who this person was and they wanted him to stop. How they deduced who it was was simple.
At this level of professional magic you aren’t just peforming tricks you can buy in a shop. You need a carpenter who can construct the sets. That makes each big trick a very personalized one-time-only affair.
As you can understand, this is a very small field, and only a handfull of carpenters operate in this arena. As I recall, the WSJ article said there were 4 men but did not give their names.
The professional magicians notified the carpenters and asked if any of them recognized their work. One man said he did recognize his work even though the props had been repainted different colors…and the work had been done for Valentino.
As I recall it was AFTER that article appeared in the WSJ that the Fox network started promoting that in the final installment the Masked Magician would take the mask off.
Putting the actions in context causes me to question; Would he have taken the mask off if the jig wasn’t up? It’s also in context that the answer to your question appears to be…no.
These things:
- levitating between the roofs of two buildings
- walking across a swimming pool
- passing through the glass of a shop window
So, how did he do them?
Exactly as you would expect.
- there was a rope
- there was a platform
- there was movable glass
Those are gross oversimplifications, but that’s how.
As someone who has been both a creator and a critic, I say with authority that this quote - and the many others that are similar - is purest bullshit.
These tricks look spectacular on the Criss Angel DVD.
- He stands on one Vegas roof, then floats across the street to the opposite roof. Pedestrians gasp in amazement.
- He enters a Vegas hotel swimming pool area and simply walks across the pool. There are dozens of guests swimming or sitting around.
- He asks a store owner if he can do a trick in his store. He gets two pedestrians to hold a large piece of paper over a window, enters the store and pushes through the window and the paper, exiting onto the street.
Thanks to the Masked Magician, it’s now clear that Criss Angel used:
- A crane with a wire leading to a harness. The crane arm is clearly visible to all the ‘pedestrians’.
- A huge plastic frame which is inserted into the pool beforehand. Every single ‘guest’ in shot is a stooge.
- It may not even be a real store. There are two assistants inside the store (in full view of the ‘store owner’; the ‘two pedestrians’ can both see and feel how the trick is done.
This is why I started the thread.
I love being fooled by magicians and think misdirection, timing, dexterity (especially close-up card magic) and even props on a stage are wonderful fun.
But I am really disappointed in the above, because Criss Angel clearly implied he was doing ‘street magic’ in front of genuine passers-by and with no preparation / props.
So you like being fooled by magicians, but you’re upset that they lie about how they do the tricks…
I gather your mind is no longer freaked.
Houdini exposing seances and predatory hocus pocus was good works, this guy is making a fast buck. And ALL the illusions are old, the skill of the magician comes in to make it look new, how many ways are there to hide a pigeon or guess the right playing card?
By this guys logic it would have been ok for Henry Ford to go around shooting horses to ‘kickstart’ innovation.
I vote for the masked magician’s work actually being positive for the magic industry.
Firstly, magic is a dying art, at least in my country, and revealing the secrets was actually a good hook for getting people interested again. I’m sure magicians got work out of this.
And secondly, many of the tricks are more impressive when you know how they’re done.
In one trick, the masked magician is buried. To do the trick, he basically holds his breath for 3 minutes (IIRC). I was amazed by this: if I’d just seen the trick alone I would have assumed that there was a tunnel or something so he can just crawl through to the green room and have a cup of coffee.
Hey, if those horses were broken-down nags, I’d be in favor. Let’s face it, most of the tricks shown on the specials were dusty with age. Does anyone seriously not know how to make a girl levitate with an S-shaped bar and a forklift? Is it really all that damaging to show that, hey, there’s actually lots of room in that basket, no wonder the swords he’s sticking in don’t hurt her?
I’m no magician, but I know or can figure out how about 95% of all stage illusions are done. But I’ll still pay to see Lance Burton, because it’s still a heck of a show.
Besides, as pointed out earlier, the Masked Magician is hardly the only one doing it. Penn and Teller do the cup-and-balls with clear plastic cups in a way that makes you appreciate the artistry, and I’ve seen them do this one live, giving away the gag. And of course David Copperfield himself showed how the “teleporting duck” trick worked. Happens all the time.
If I may, he appreciates illusionists that work in front of an audience but not a special-effects artist who depends on camera placement and a fake audience.
You’re missing a smiley there. Copperfield was joking, and doing another trick even as part of the joke. He didn’t reveal a thing.
If I may speak for glee, I would say that I’m upset when a trick is supposed to fool those in close proximity of the trick when if fact they’re all in on it. That’s different from street magic when sleight of hand and maybe one other person are key to the trick being successful and all others watching are amazed and don’t know how it’s done.
I guess that just seems like an arbitrary distinction to make when the entire process is nothing but applied misdirection and deception. It’s all part of the same art, seems to me.
This is the difference: We’d like to think that the camera is just another member of the audience, and the trick would be identical if we were there in person instead of watching on TV.
I think it is the people who make the difference. Rational or not, any trick that relies on confederates is going to seem cheap to us.
Yeah, I don’t so much use smileys, they don’t really fit with my personality, and that can make me hard to “read” at times. Clearly, there’s no mistaking that the “reveal” is a gag. I was making a funny.
Har har?
OK, I’ll be a Devil’s Advocate, but if a magician does a trick but does not reveal how it is done, even though he says “it’s a trick,” there will be some who say, “No, it’s not. It’s really magic or he has supernatural powers.”
Now not for one minute do I believe that. But if I can’t illustrate how it might have been done, I’ll have a hard time convincing the Believer that supernatural powers weren’t involved. And from a pure logic standpoint, that is one possible explanation.
I have attended skeptic conferences in the past, and observed the best performing artists (and this includes you, Ianzin), but when their performance stops short of revealing the principles, I feel defrauded. I didn’t go to be entertained – Las Vegas is for that – I went to find out the rational explanation for what appears to be magic.
It seems to me that tv magic is different from stage magic in the same way that stage magic is different from someone doing a few tricks right there next to you. A tv magician is performing for the cameras, and has a few options up his sleeves regarding placement and props that a stage magician does not have. But a stage guy probably has several confederates working with him, from his lovely assistant to “strangers” placed in the audience, that the person doing a quick pick-a-card or vanishing coin trick at a party would not have.
I wouldn’t judge one form by the limitations of another. It’s all tricks, after all.