Camera tricks are okay to use in magic

[Josh Burch]

If the camera tricks are used CORRECTLY, ala Blaine...then nothing is wrong with using said prop to intensify the magic...

Same thing with stooges...

I agree, it's all relative. Since high school a friend of mine and I have had a code system. Nobody ever knew he was in on it and they still don't. High School was ages ago but I still get friends who remember me and that trick I did at a party way back then. the method relied on a stooge and I never regretted doing it.

I thing Marco Tempest is a great example of a sort of modern Melie. He performs magic with technology in much of the same way. I think if they had a chance they'd be great friends.

 

[PurpleMustache]

If the camera tricks are used CORRECTLY, ala Blaine...then nothing is wrong with using said prop to intensify the magic...

Same thing with stooges...

i have to disagree. some camera tricks can be okay to intensify magic as you said. but i dont think think stooges are okay at all. if i could tell someone to think of any card (just think, not writing it down or anything) and i could name it, that would be an unbelievable trick. but if i paid someone to be a stooge and have them act amazed no matter what card i said, that would be terrible.

 

[Mike.Hankins]

i have to disagree. some camera tricks can be okay to intensify magic as you said. but i dont think think stooges are okay at all. if i could tell someone to think of any card (just think, not writing it down or anything) and i could name it, that would be an unbelievable trick. but if i paid someone to be a stooge and have them act amazed no matter what card i said, that would be terrible.

Stooges are used all the time...
In my bar gig, I had one of the bartenders who was off and just "watching", help withvan effect that we performed each night, twice a night. The idea I had was to INTENSIFY the effect for the spectator, and guess what? It did. The effect I did could not have been done without the help of someone else...

 

[Mike.Hankins]

but if i paid someone to be a stooge and have them act amazed no matter what card i said, that would be terrible.

Terrible for who? If you had someone who was just a terrible actor and the other spectators around found out that there was a stooge involved, yes. It would be terrible...

Just like using gaffs in a deck. Nothing at all wrong with it. Using a gaffed card is a lot like using a stooge in that what you are trying to accomplish could not be accomplished at all or as well, without the aid of a trick card that the audience doesn't know about...

 

[Justin.Morris]

If the spectator knows it's editing that makes it possible then it isn't really magic is it?

The same goes if the spectator knows it's just sleight of hand. That is unless it's truly deceptive. Wouldn't that be the same (as Mike is suggesting) with camera editing? If it deceives.... Just think of how many times people ask if you can float like that guy on tv...

 

[Austin Fields]

I think when you start doing magic professionally as your source of income, your mindset tends to change. If I have the opportunity to instant stooge a waiter or the bartender at my restaurant, in order to book a client, you bet I'd do it.

My belief though is that I need a way of duplicating the overall effect, otherwise you're just asking to be bit in the ass. I agree that you shouldn't get carried away with these types of methods, but my mission is to create magic by any and all means necessary. That's my job, and my goal.

 

[Craig Browning]

Let us consider one very important thing when trying to legitimize the use of camera trickery & creative editing (something that's been an issue since Copperfield first started doing it). . .

One noted TV personality is so addicted to using such that when he was set into a live theatrical program HE SUCKED! He didn't know how to pull of real magic and as an end result his Vegas show, from an industry point of view, was bombing left and right. It was still bringing in the teens & young adults of the MTv genre that he played to, but even they walked away feeling a bit ripped off.

Using Green Screen, CGI, Editing methods, etc. IS NOT magic. If it were then anyone could shoot footage in which the miraculous happens and call themselves a "Magician". Same, in my book at least, goes for stunts in which store fronts or nite club flooring is gimmicked just for a video stunt like walking through a wall or window, the DeKolta Chair and even a couple of suspension bits I've seen. Sure, it's clever and historically there have been many "built in" effects systems -- built into theaters or facilities in which a regular, long term engagement was involved. Installing a $10,000.00 illusion into a storefront for a single use situation is STUPID and a very poor move when it comes to business and gains on the investment. He can't travel with that piece nor can it be done on stage in a real show.

When Copperfield did the Grand Canyon special there were portions of the levitation that were shot at Lucas/ILM so as to show him moving through the air. That's taking things way too far. Using camera perspective in order to pull off the stunt is perfectly fine and an established technique in magic, be it close-up or stage, but Green Screen . . . c'mon.

We should NEVER demonstrate on camera anything we cannot replicate live. . . I'm not talking about things like perspective manipulation but more about the creative editing argument. Copperfield's Statute of Liberty show has a levitation feature that insiders called the Amazing Changing Audience Trick in that the routine had so many edits and inserts so as to make three different gimmicks appear as one single levitation. If you actually watch the audience vs. the effect, you will seen new faces popping up and out with great frequency. How is such a thing "Magic" or more importantly "Legit"?

We are obliged to use extreme discretion when it comes to this medium and what we do, how we do it and why; it's a huge cob web that can hurt us as well as the art itself.

 

[Craig Browning]

BUT, I just found this, it's priceless {why isn't the video displaying?}

youtube;bZExX6aS77o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZExX6aS77o&feature=player_embedded

 

[NlightN]

The same goes if the spectator knows it's just sleight of hand. That is unless it's truly deceptive. Wouldn't that be the same (as Mike is suggesting) with camera editing? If it deceives.... Just think of how many times people ask if you can float like that guy on tv...

Difference is that if they know it's camera editing then there isn't any way around it. If they know it's sleight of hand then that is all they know. Yeah it's sleight of hand, but it looks so impossible that it might as well be magic.

 

[NlightN]

Hahaha that is an effect created by David Williamson and as far as I understand it is owned by David Copperfield. He performs it live on stage with two members of the audience. Looks like you saw a cheap imitation of the real thing :/

Honestly I don't think the magician in the web series was all that serious about that episode. Or at least I hope he wasn't.

 

[Josh Burch]

Let us consider one very important thing when trying to legitimize the use of camera trickery & creative editing (something that's been an issue since Copperfield first started doing it). . .

One noted TV personality is so addicted to using such that when he was set into a live theatrical program HE SUCKED! He didn't know how to pull of real magic and as an end result his Vegas show, from an industry point of view, was bombing left and right. It was still bringing in the teens & young adults of the MTv genre that he played to, but even they walked away feeling a bit ripped off.

Using Green Screen, CGI, Editing methods, etc. IS NOT magic. If it were then anyone could shoot footage in which the miraculous happens and call themselves a "Magician". Same, in my book at least, goes for stunts in which store fronts or nite club flooring is gimmicked just for a video stunt like walking through a wall or window, the DeKolta Chair and even a couple of suspension bits I've seen. Sure, it's clever and historically there have been many "built in" effects systems -- built into theaters or facilities in which a regular, long term engagement was involved. Installing a $10,000.00 illusion into a storefront for a single use situation is STUPID and a very poor move when it comes to business and gains on the investment. He can't travel with that piece nor can it be done on stage in a real show.

When Copperfield did the Grand Canyon special there were portions of the levitation that were shot at Lucas/ILM so as to show him moving through the air. That's taking things way too far. Using camera perspective in order to pull off the stunt is perfectly fine and an established technique in magic, be it close-up or stage, but Green Screen . . . c'mon.

We should NEVER demonstrate on camera anything we cannot replicate live. . . I'm not talking about things like perspective manipulation but more about the creative editing argument. Copperfield's Statute of Liberty show has a levitation feature that insiders called the Amazing Changing Audience Trick in that the routine had so many edits and inserts so as to make three different gimmicks appear as one single levitation. If you actually watch the audience vs. the effect, you will seen new faces popping up and out with great frequency. How is such a thing "Magic" or more importantly "Legit"?

We are obliged to use extreme discretion when it comes to this medium and what we do, how we do it and why; it's a huge cob web that can hurt us as well as the art itself.

Craig you know I respect you and your knowledge but I'm going to break down your post a little bit and be a devils advocate.

In modern magic I agree with your statement "We should NEVER demonstrate on camera anything we cannot replicate live". In the Melie example I believe he is one of the rare exceptions to this rule. In many legitimate instances what you are seeing is on the screen is not exactly what you would experience live but what you would see through the lens of the camera live. Varius effects come to mind, the Statue of Liberty, Space Shuttle, the Herd of Elephants and many of Marco Tempest's magic effects look great through the lens but if you were there there may be noise, motion or perspective differences that would make the illusion fall flat.

The levitation over the grand canyon is ridiculous. I'm surprised that he still refers to it. It's a music video, not magic. Between the sound track, the constant camera cuts, and the credits i'd call this a catchy title sequence but not magic

As for the changing audience, it is fairly well known that they film the specials multiple times and cut in the best performances. I've never heard of them changing the method as well but that does seem kinda fishy.

 

[Josh Burch]

Difference is that if they know it's camera editing then there isn't any way around it. If they know it's sleight of hand then that is all they know. Yeah it's sleight of hand, but it looks so impossible that it might as well be magic.

This is an example of making something work for T.V. that wouldn't have worked otherwise. If anybody has properly performed the levitation David uses in his live performances than you know that it can work out great but wont stand up to repeat viewings. For that I understand why he did what he did. From what I hear David Blaine regrets doing it.

 

[PurpleMustache]

Stooges are used all the time...
In my bar gig, I had one of the bartenders who was off and just "watching", help withvan effect that we performed each night, twice a night. The idea I had was to INTENSIFY the effect for the spectator, and guess what? It did. The effect I did could not have been done without the help of someone else...

you keep using the word intensify and im not sure what you mean. when i think of using a stooge to intensify magic, im thinking of just making a good trick a little bit more intense. but your saying it couldnt have been done without him.could you describe what the effect was so i can get a better idea of what was going on?

 

[Josh Burch]

But if i paid someone to be a stooge and have them act amazed no matter what card i said, that would be terrible.

What if that spectator was giving you covert signals as to the identity of the other spectators cards, or that spectator was going to slip a card into a spectators pocket or hand bag for a future revelation?

I would say that any method works as long as it is artfully employed. I think I heard that from Derren Brown.

 

[PurpleMustache]

What if that spectator was giving you covert signals as to the identity of the other spectators cards, or that spectator was going to slip a card into a spectators pocket or hand bag for a future revelation?

I would say that any method works as long as it is artfully employed. I think I heard that from Derren Brown.

that kind of stooge would be okay i suppose. but as for the way i described it, im against that kind of of stooge.

 

[Steerpike]

For those of you who have watched the film Hugo

Twice in theaters, getting a blu-ray player specifically for that movie and the Planet Earth series. Reminded me why I wanted to be a filmmaker and ended up being my movie of the year. That opening shot is one of the best things Scorsese has ever filmed.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that all methods are fair game. Make of that what you will.

 

[Justin.Morris]

Difference is that if they know it's camera editing then there isn't any way around it. If they know it's sleight of hand then that is all they know. Yeah it's sleight of hand, but it looks so impossible that it might as well be magic.

That might make sense, but as Darwin Ortiz points out in Strong Magic, that when a spectator figures out any part, they feel they know how it's done and they are no longer going to be astonished. Impressed, possibly, astonished, no.

And in response to Craig, times are changing my friend. They way magic is done and the methods used are not the same as when David was on TV. It would be foolish to limit technique to simply the traditional ways of doing things. I would agree with Steerpike (second time I think... ;p) all is fair if it can be pulled off well.

 

[NlightN]

That might make sense, but as Darwin Ortiz points out in Strong Magic, that when a spectator figures out any part, they feel they know how it's done and they are no longer going to be astonished. Impressed, possibly, astonished, no.

So any stage illusion is just a waste then? Since it only "possibly impresses"?

 

[Justin.Morris]

So any stage illusion is just a waste then? Since it only "possibly impresses"?

If the audience can see how it's done -yes absoloutley. If not, then not a waste at all.

 

[NlightN]

If the audience can see how it's done -yes absoloutley. If not, then not a waste at all.

Yeah but they know it's "smoke and mirrors" like they know it's "sleight of hand".