Magic on TV: Editing/Stooges (vs) "Purist" - What's BEST for the Art?

[Guest]

Al said>>>>The statement has been made that misdirection cannot be used on camera.

This is absurd.>>>>

The statement was made that the camera is not misdirectable. This is true. The camera is a passive observer. It sees precisely what is within it's frame and focus. Nothing more, nothing less. The camera is not misdirectable.

The camera OPERATOR, however, is another story. The audience watching what is being filmed by the camera is another story.

Reverend Ted

[Richard Kaufman]

This is why watching Slydini or Goshman on TV or a video can NEVER replicate the experience of sitting with them at a table and seeing true magic achieved through misdirection. The camera is a dead eye.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
Yah... the camera does is not fooled or entertained, it is just a device for us to see what is happening in front of it...

You can misdirect the viewer's attention even if there is a camera in between.

Also, aside, Criss Angel CAN and DOES do great magic live.

This is very true Pete. But as a fellow photographer you know that the camera is an extension of the eye of the viewer and there are many decisions that can be made regarding this recording device that can set the viewer up for some real misdirection. Several factors that come to mind are:

1. Placement, what is in frame and just out of frame can be used for loading or "lapping" much the same as a tables edge.
2. Perspective - You can force literally millions of people into a very tiny point of view.
3.Flat image - the lack of depth perception can often aid in a trick made for television.
4.Choice of lens - wide angle, long lenses or normal view can each have their certain characteristics that can aid in illusion.
5. Depth of field - by manipulation of this we can easily blur out things in the background we would not necessarily want folks to see clearly. 6.Resolution - The fact that camera work on regular television is not exactly crisp in detail can aid in an illusion (This may disappear with the new High Definition technology). I remember an Indiana Jones move where he falls into a snake pit and the actor is actually divided by a sheet of glass. On a video tape it was invisible but on a video disk (remember those?) Harrison Ford's reflection was clearly seen. There are probably more things but I'd have to give it a little thought ot come up with them.

Do these fool the camera - technically no they fool the viewer of the camera's image, but since the semantics used on this thread are all over the place one could make a case that the camera is fooled. The point is misdirection is alive and well using the television medium, and how much of it we are willing to accept before it becomes "cheating" remains essentially in out own minds. It is a fluid argument. I myself am much more accepting now than I was two years ago, and radically so from ten years ago.

Where does this leave magic? In my opinion safe and sound. Cris Angel did the old glass through the table on his show using a bottle and a napkin. Despite it being in evey beginner book since Moses was a baby - the audience reation around the table was every bit as good as his "impossible" stunts. He followed this up with an explaination for those at home and then proceeded to push a hot sauce bottle through the table without cover. It really got no better reaction than the first - this is very good news for we mere mortals who do not have a crew behind him to make the magic appear on the big eyed box in our living room week to week.

I am happy he is on television (pissed that I am not) and thankful that despite my relative obscurity within the realm of magic, I am within the realm of magic. As far as the endless arguing I will leave it to history and the time it takes to become history, to decide.

Frank Tougas

[Richard Kaufman]

One thing I neglected to mention in my earlier post is that the notion that the camera cannot be misdirected is related to the size of the screen on which the material will eventually be viewed.
On a normal size TV, it's almost impossible to be misdirected because the viewing area is so small--you can taken in the entire screen in one glance. If you have a very large TV screen, then it's possible to cause the viewer to look entirely in one direction and even turn the head slightly. Under those circumstances, it's possible to misdirect the viewer.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
One thing I neglected to mention in my earlier post is that the notion that the camera cannot be misdirected is related to the size of the screen on which the material will eventually be viewed.
On a normal size TV, it's almost impossible to be misdirected because the viewing area is so small--you can take in the entire screen in one glance. If you have a very large TV screen, then it's possible to cause the viewer to look entirely in one direction and even turn the head slightly. Under those circumstances, it's possible to misdirect the viewer.

Interesting, but I am not so sure it is true. I remember Lance Burton on the second Science of Magic did an experiment where he was counting some cards from a blue backed bicycle deck. The instructions were to count the red cards. My eyes were glued to the screen and when he was done it was discovered that the blue backed deck was actually mostly red backed cards.

Lance ran back the tapeto explain and it was crystal clear that the deck he was dealing from turned to red backed cards shortly after the directive to count the red cards and only returned back to a blue backed deck shortly before finishing the dealing.

I played back my video tape - could not believe when he showed us what had happened that we were actually seeing a replay of the original, but we were.

My attention and that of most of the at home audience was misdirected to a small area of the screen and completely oblivious to the remaider. The size of the screen was not an issue.

Frank Tougas

[Guest]

Originally posted by Frank Tougas:
...My attention and that of most of the at home audience was [mis]directed to a small area of the screen and completely oblivious to the remaider. The size of the screen was not an issue.

Attention is directed toward something. In this case the counting of red cards. That it may also be, by procedural design, directed away from something else is a side effect. Trying NOT to think of a polar bear is pretty much a recipe for imagining one, probably with a bottle of coke inhand. ;)

There are a couple of videos of events on a basketball court where one is asked to count the number of ball passes and misses noticing someone in a gorilla suit go by.

The studies in "change blindness" are also cited online.

The focus of attention is much smaller than the field of awareness much as the focus of vision is very small compared to the visual field.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
On a normal size TV, it's almost impossible to be misdirected because the viewing area is so small--you can take in the entire screen in one glance.

Originally posted by Frank Tougas:
I remember Lance Burton on the second Science of Magic did an experiment where he was counting some cards from a blue backed bicycle deck. The instructions were to count the red cards. My eyes were glued to the screen and when he was done it was discovered that the blue backed deck was actually mostly red backed cards.

...

My attention and that of most of the at home audience was misdirected to a small area of the screen and completely oblivious to the remainder. The size of the screen was not an issue.

I think you're both right. As Richard pointed out, the size of the screen makes it very difficult to misdirect attention, since the whole scene is generally within your primary field of view. Difficult doesn't mean impossible, though. By using misdirective principles intelligently, you can direct the TV viewing audience's attention so that they don't perceive certain details. Tommy Wonder and Juan Tamariz are both examples of people who were able to do this, at least when I first watched their videos.

On the other hand, this kind of stuff isn't necessarily TiVo-proof, which should be a concern for TV performers, I think.

-Jim

[Guest]

First, putting Criss in the same category with David is like putting a house painter in the same category as DaVinci. If you really examine what Blaine has accomplished, then you'd realize cameras and stooges play zero role in his effect on an audience. Blaine's five stunts have been performed live, in front of millions of fans worldwide, none of whom have been prompted or coached to see anything other than the beautiful image he has created, in addition to the awe-inspiring heights of human endurance he has reached. David's card effects, when performed on TV, are absent of any post-production edits, with the obvious exception of omissions for the purposes of time (you can't air every card effect or you'd have a twelve hour show). When Criss floats from the top of one building to another, he is catering to ten year-old boys who also still believe in Santa Claus, so in his case, it's like watching a cartoon. See how the two don't work as a joint example? But, to answer your comment directly, lying is not the essence of magic. Believing is. If you can make someone believe that something is true and is really happening, then it doesn't matter how you got there -- all that matters is the final effect you have had on your audience, and the fact that THEY have walked away thinking they've witnessed something that is impossible. If you can bend someone's comprehension of logic, then you have won. But, when Criss floats from one building to the next and claims there was no camera edits involved, then the lie is on display, rather than the illusion, therefore he has failed -- unless you are ten, in which case he is entertaining a demographic, thus justifying his existence on TV. But David advances the artform, whereas Criss cheapens it, or lowers it.

[Richard Kaufman]

I'm sorry, PLevi, but if you don't think David Blaine uses editing and other monkey business in his TV shows then you really don't have any credibility here.

[Guest]

Aside from the difficulty of misdirecting the viewer on a small screen with a fixed camera, a big problem with magic on video is that it's so easy to watch it over and over until things become obvious. A layman friend of mine did this with Ricky Jay's HBO special a few years ago and was able to see straight through to most of the methods.

[Guest]

Originally posted by DeeBrennan:

The ((alleged)) edit in Blaine's Balducci, however, with the either-stooges-or-stand-ins for the OTS shot of Blaine levitating 5 feet above the sidewalk, in my opinion, smacks of a "Bewitched" episode, thus damaging the mystery through dishonesty.

The bad kind of dishonesty! :-)

P&l,
D

This is one of those tricks that improves each time it is described. If you look at the cut on youtube, he is going no more than 15 inches above the pavement. Is this the same sequence you are referring to?

Besides, how do you KNOW he was doing a Balducci for the first part? Just a simple question.

Wouldn't it have made sense to use whatever hookup he was using for the larger flight for the whole thing, and use a "trained" audience for the reactions. That's what I would have done.

Regarding Copperfield's editing on the levitation -- I remember that well. It was one of the rare specials I had videotaped. My brother, who owns a video production company had a completely different explanation for it that did not require the edits (which were plain to see -- if you remember, the couch changed sides of the stage, as well). The gimmick could have been painted with a grey paint that would have matched the shadow below. It would have accomplished basically the same thing as black art. Video did not have the kind of accurate resolution that it has now.

Henning's specials could have been improved by judicious editing and retakes. For example, when he did the "Half-Vanishing Television Set," that was a low point in magic.

Copperfield has used other edits. For example, in the Lear Jet vanish, he used both stooges and an edit. Replay it sometime and see who you can identify in the people who surrounded the plane.

In his motorcycle production, the televised version used a bluescreen on the prop. The image was superimposed later to get everything to line up. I had friends in the audience who saw the video session.

However, Copperfield can perform that one live. I'm not offended by any of these. Except Henning's foulup on the television vanish.

[Guest]

Hi Bill,

I was wondering - I have all of the Henning specials, and I don't remember him performing or making a mistake on a "Television Vanish".

Also - on the Copperfield Lear Jet, it is one camera shot from the time the walls are raised to the time they are lowered.

Where does the cut/edit come in?

[Guest]

The Henning special with the "Half Vanishing Television Set" was the first one Doug directed himself. He was going to do a television set vanish. The set went a little more than halfway down into the table and stuck there. It was pretty bad.

The Lear Jet vanish had at least 20 minutes cut from it. It may have been one shot, but it was edited. And there definitely were stooges in the circle. Run the video and see if you don't recognize a couple of well-known magic folks.

[Guest]

I think we can agree that there IS great magic that can be done on television without camera trickery or post-production CGI.

I think we can also agree that there are some beautiful pieces of magic that won't translate well on television.

So, if we have a TV spot, why not simply choose material from the former and not the latter?

My best,
David Rowyn

//

[Guest]

Editing is a part af all TV, magic or otherwise. Everyone uses editing, whether to cover methods or just for entertainment value. This should be no surprise. As far as the effectiveness of tricks goes, I would say that Criss Angel and Blaine are pretty neck and neck. I have heard from laymen who thought both of them sold their souls. ;)

[Guest]

Originally posted by davidrowyn:
I think we can agree that there IS great magic that can be done on television without camera trickery or post-production CGI.

I think we can also agree that there are some beautiful pieces of magic that won't translate well on television.

So, if we have a TV spot, why not simply choose material from the former and not the latter?

My best,
David Rowyn

//

I tend to agree with you, Mr. Rowyn. The problem I see, however, for the future, is going to be how a new person can rise to the level of Blaine or Angel without resorting to all of their tactics. That is the eternal problem.

I can see some editing, is fine, depending on the venue. I have a hard time imagining performing on say, MTV, for instance without editing. (Then again, when I performed on Panama's version of MTV, we wanted it to look live, and did none of the sound-bite chopping up.)

My rule, for as long as I can maintain it, is to perform nothing on Television that couldn't be performed under some circumstances live. In other words, I'll do things on T.V. that I'd rarely do live, as long as it's theoretically possible.

Part of the reason for that is, if I were David Blaine, I would charge say, a hundred grand to do close-up at parties and such. I'd hate to have people requesting things I couldn't do.