Mindfreak I and II

[mop krayz]

i think voodoo trick part two (blood) needs no comment as many have been doing a similar effect for ages.
part 1 (burn) replies on a gadget mechanism :)

[magicam]

An interesting thread. In the spirit of academic conversation, some thoughts...

Michael Yanovich wrote:

Basically, I'm curious as to how you would approach your own TV special. That's not meant as a challenge, I genuinely would like to hear comments on how you think you'd present magic on TV.... So what do you all recommend?

Seems like there is considerable concern that the TV audience may dismiss the effects as nothing more than camera deception. But IMHO I dont think thats much of an issue with lay audiences. Read the reviews. If they fairly represent what lay people were thinking after seeing the show, very little (if any) energy was spent worrying about special effects instead, the focus was on Angels personality, presentation, and the merits/attractiveness of his tricks. BUT, assuming (1) that camera trickery is a big issue and (2) that Angel follows his coda (RK, I think you meant credo) of staying true to his live performance capabilities, here are my suggestions to Mr. Yanovich:

Invite a nationally-recognized investigative reporting team (like 60 Minutes) to do their own filming of a weekly show, and use their footage exclusively or quite substantially with the production footage.

Or better yet, hand out hi-tech video cameras to members of the audience and compose the show entirely from their videos.

In the latter case, yes, the question of stooges might come up, but would the suspicion be any greater than it is already? Audience videos just might be a sensational way of reinforcing the reality aspect of the show. And hey, if you want jerky NYPD Blue camera shots, you got em!

I doubt either of these options is possible - at least for the entire show - but it would be a good acid test for some of Mr. Yanovichs and Banacheks claims, no? If one or the other did happen and the same magical results were captured on film, that would be impressive. And if a 60 Minutes type show did the gig, and assuming of course that all went well, is there any question about the publicity benefits? [Mr. Yanovich: no payment is needed for these suggestions a TV consulting credit, a pair of front row tickets to Criss next live show, and a Criss Angel t-shirt would do just fine.... :D ]

By the way, maybe someone else noted this already, but... although Banachek does not identify himself, he leaves the impression that he was intimately involved with the production of the shows. If Banachek speaks with authority, he seems to directly contradict Richards claim re Angels credo that Angel can perform live ANY trick he performs in Mindfreak.


Nathan Coe Marsh wrote: The key is artistic integrity.

Amongst magicians and when it comes to the highest respect of ones peers, I agree. For lay audiences, Id argue that artistic integrity is largely irrelevant, sad commentary that it is. If lay audiences were concerned about and only patronized magicians who truly had artistic integrity, Id wager that the number of successful and/or famous magicians over the past 125 years would be far fewer indeed.


I have yet to see any of Angels shows, but if they succeed in maintaining or increasing the publics perception that magic is a wonderful and serious art, then Im satisfied. That Angel may be goth or may have primary appeal to the MTV (or a later) generation is of no moment.


Finally, all due respect to my friend Dustin, but even if Dave Baram has a better grasp of what makes for a commercially successful production than a lot of us, Dustins careful words clearly imply that others in this world might also have some keen insights on such topic and some of those others might be posting on this forum. Call it piddling, screwing around, etc., but Ive really enjoyed many of the posts on this thread and suspect one or two might provide even Baram with a few nuggets to mine but only Baram could answer that question. If Dustins point is that, in light of the commercial success of Angels series, much of the exchanges here are academic, maybe hes right. But I still love the discourse.

Clay
Meminisse Magicam

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Magicam:
By the way, maybe someone else noted this already, but... although Banachek does not identify himself, he leaves the impression that he was intimately involved with the production of the shows. If Banachek speaks with authority, he seems to directly contradict Richards claim re Angels credo that Angel can perform live ANY trick he performs in Mindfreak.

Psst...Clay...time to peek out from the history books. ;) Not only is Banachek one of the consultants on the show, he's one of the top mentalists around and author of several excellent books: http://www.banachek.org/banachekmain..htm

Nice to see him get some screen time last night, along with Johnny Thompson, Lance Burton, Todd Robbins, and Luke Jermay.

-Jim

[NCMarsh]

Magicam,

enjoyed the post, here are my thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts:

Amongst magicians and when it comes to the highest respect of ones peers, I agree. For lay audiences, Id argue that artistic integrity is largely irrelevant, sad commentary that it is. If lay audiences were concerned about and only patronized magicians who truly had artistic integrity, Id wager that the number of successful and/or famous magicians over the past 125 years would be far fewer indeed.

I'm not quite sure what you think I mean by artistic integrity. The line you quote occurs in the context of my thinking about how we ought to respond to the special. By "artistic integrity" I mean that we do the pieces that we do because they are a part of our own vision -- not out of a desire to duplicate someone else's work and, most importantly, not with the attitude that magic is a generic commodity.

Criss Angel clearly has artistic integrity. David Blaine clearly has artistic integrity. Derren Brown clearly has artistic integrity. Doug Henning clearly has artistic integrity. Mac King clearly has artistic integrity. Penn and Teller clearly have artistic integrity. Wayne Dobson clearly has artistic integrity. Harry Anderson clearly has artistic integrity. Lance Burton clearly has artistic integrity. David Berglas clearly has artistic integrity.

Indeed, far from your claim, I find it pretty tough to find a famous magician who doesn't have artistic integrity.

yours,

Nathan.
IllusionArtistry.com

[magicam]

Jim: Well.... just more evidence of my ignorance! I thought Banachek was either a GF-specific pseudonym or that George Peppard (sp?) was helping produce TV magic shows... Years ago, due to space and income constraints, I decided not to subscribe to general magic magazines. With no periodicals to read and my lack of interest in mentalism (no slight aimed at the mentalists, just personal taste), that really puts me in a hole for current events sometimes. But I know a little bit about Fogel, Dunninger, et al! At any rate, thanks for the clue in. (Since I have your attention, an update on Stork: I called MC and mentioned your research, and he said hed try to see what info he had as time permitted.)

Nathan: Thanks for the clarification. I got the wrong message from your post that I excerpted. Heres the text surrounding that excerpt:

I have never been asked by a client to duplicate an effect that was on t.v. -- so I can't speak to the possibility from experience. I can say that my response to questions about Blaine is heavily influenced by a conversation that I had with Bill Malone about these questions. Bill gives David tremendous credit whenever the topic comes up with laymen...saying "yeah, that guy is really amazing..."

I don't know Bill well enough to speculate as to how he would answer a request to do another performer's material (the conversation in question happened during the only evening I have spent with him). I would, however, be extremely surprised if he entertained such a request.

The key is artistic integrity. You don't approach the question, even if it is meant this way, as a challenge. You answer it from the perspective of an artist who does the material that interests him -- not a magical "tribute" act that regurgitates other performers' work.

If a client or booker specifically requested a piece from a television show, my response would be something along the lines of:

"I would rather give your guests an experience that they cannot get from another performer than offer them an imitation of another man's work."

Basically, what I got out of it was that you wouldnt copy another persons effect, routine, or act because it wasnt yours (i.e., you didnt own it). So I concluded that you thought it was morally wrong to copy or substantially duplicate someones material and felt that anyone who did so lacked artistic integrity (read originality). My point was simply that magic history is filled with the greats borrowing material from other performers or inventors, and that such events do not seem to have materially affected the lay popularity of the offending magician.

Clay

[NCMarsh]

Clay,

I had the sense that that was how you were reading the thought and I can certainly understand why...

best,

N.
IllusionArtistry.com

[Richard Kaufman]

What did everyone think of episodes 3 and 4 from last night?

First, I'd like to remind Nathan to watch his language--please use asterisks if you want to describe genitalia.

Second, I'm greatly bummed that my part in the Wine Barrel episode was cut. I saw it in a rough cut.

Third, I really enjoyed both episodes last night, and that Deja Vu trick where the couple was instantly transported way down the hotel hallway looked great.

[NCMarsh]

Justice White was refering to genitalia? You had me...guess I don't know it when I see it

my apologies D...I mean Richard...

best,

N.
IllusionArtistry.com

[Pete Biro]

I thought last night's shows were excellent, especially since RK was "left on the cutting room floor!" :D :genii: :D

[Guest]

Can they incorporated a buzzer so I know when to ignore the wife, dogs, cat, etc during the show and look up? I missed the action on most of the magic parts. Over all I enjoyed listening to it.
Steve V

[Ryan Matney]

I enjoyed the episodes although it seems to me the actual escapes and bed of nails stunt always seem anti climactic. Neither one really looked like they were described or built up. I find this a general problem with escapes and such stunts on tv though.

The suv stunt was dissapointing to me because I really expected it to roll over Criss. And, the wine barrel was less dissapointing but Lance Burton doing the cliched "Oh no, something is wrong" and saying "I'm really concerned' all the while talking in a monotone didn't help much.

I liked the magic in the episodes much better than the hype tricks. The needles from belly button made me gag. The hummer card through window on he bus looked great.

If laymen were to think anything was a camera trick it will be that deja vu trick.

I hope we eventually get to see Johnny Thompson do some magic. Great seeing his input and Todd Robbins albeit briefly.

[Guest]

Yeah the reveal (after the burn) was too fast, and also had a cut right before he is revealed. Makes me wonder if it was even presented that way to the audience . . .

Still enjoyed the shows.

[Guest]

I enjoyed the shows last night, and I also thought the deja-vu effect came off really well. I liked the "impromptu" frisbee demonstration, though it was obvious they were going somewhere with it despite his apparent frustration that they weren't busy shooting magic. Good stuff.

The needles from belly button was pretty nasty. One of my laymen friends almost had to choke a vomit when the first pin slid out, which I thought was a cool reaction that Criss probably would have enjoyed.

It's interesting how much discussion this series has already opened up in the magic community. I've decided that I'm going to simply watch the show and enjoy it for what it is. I won't dive into the discussions myself, though I have been having a blast reading through various forums this past week!

Pj

[Banachek]

Here are the ratings from week one, Criss broke many records:

Both 1/2 hours generated a 1.3 and total viewers averaged 1.8 million impressions. Some highlights from the ratings:

1. Number 1 rated original cable program of any cable network for the entire night in the 25-54 demo;

2. Number 2 original cable program of any cable network in the 18-45 demo for the entire night (but Number 1 from 10:30-11:00);

3. Lowest median age premiere at 33 in the network's entire history

4. The A & E night was .8 for Dog the Bounty Hunter in the 8-9 hour; .9 for the Inked premiere at 9 and a 1.3 for Mindfreak at 10:00 (thus the show built on the network's entire night which is not easy)

5. Highest rated show for both household and key demos in the 10:00 Wednesday hour for the entire year for the network

6. Mindfreak beat the network key demo averages by 127% (18-45) and 91% (25-54) with well over 1 million views in each demo.

7 Mindfreak grew slightly--adding viewers--over the course of the hour. Great sign for the show.

An excerpt from A & E's press release last week:


A&E NETWORKS NEW SERIES CRISS ANGEL MINDFREAK & INKED

DELIVER THE YOUNGEST SERIES PREMIERE MEDIAN AGE IN NETWORK HISTORY

New York, NY, July 21, 2005 A&E Networks new series CRISS ANGEL MINDFREAK, delivered the youngest series premiere in the networks history with a median age average of 33.5 years. CRISS ANGEL MINDFREAK garnered an average of 1.1 million A18-49 impressions (+127% vs. A&ES 2005 prime average) and 1.0 million A25-54 impressions (+91%). Among total viewers CRISS ANGEL MINDFREAK averaged 1.8 million impressions. INKED delivered a median age average of 33.6 years, making it the second youngest series premiere ever. INKED delivered 615,000 A18-49 impressions (+30%) and 583,000 A25-54 (+10%). INKED averaged 1 million total viewers.

[Adrian Kuiper]

I'm not really one to enjoy escapes, so the highlight of the shows for me last night was the card on the window while travelling in the bus.

That killed!!!

Adrian

[Guest]

I saw Chris' advertisement of "Thanks" in the most recent Genii magazine. He has thanked many people- but strangely he hasnt thanked the one man that has had the most influence on the magic that he does- David Blaine. Every trick last night was bit off Blaine-it was ridiculous.

[Pete Biro]

What make you think Blaine was first at doing street magic? He maybe was the first to sell a show to a network, but magician's have been doing stuff like Blaine for years.

Sure glad to see the ratings. And I really enjoyed last night's shows.

Can't wait to see the full-blown presentation we were teased with... INTERLUDE... what a great looking prop. Has an Ayalla look to it (I know he has worked with Criss).

[Richard Kaufman]

Otis, while Criss's performance of close-up magic on the street may have been in part inspired by Blaine, little else he does (including illusions, escapes, and performance art) has been.
Criss is a performer who has had a live illusion show which ran in Times Square--he's been performing live his entire life. David Blaine doesn't do live shows: just TV.
There's a huge difference between them.

Pete, the illusion you saw in the surreal part of the show, not really Interlude (no box) but certainly inspired by it, is done in full on Criss's second TV special Supernatural. You won't see the entire thing on Mindfreak.

[Michael Dustman]

I enjoyed both episodes last night and am really looking forward to the rest of the series.

I don't know if anti-climactic is how I would state it. I think it is different from the standpoint from Copperfield doing the upside down spikes, or escaping from an imploding building, or Burton doing the Buried Alive, etc. because those happen once a year. When you are advertising multiple death defying stunts and showing them in the opening credits, I think it takes away the suspense factor more than anything else. My wife enjoyed the shows, but said on a couple of occasions when they went to commercial, "Well obvioulsy if there are 16 more episodes, he must have survived."

Too many all at once aren't necessarily anti-climatic, but lose something.

But hey....screw the barrel, dropping 8 stories from a safety line is nothing to sneeze at either.

[Brad Baker]

The Deja Vu illusion looked fantastic on TV, and, from what I've heard around the ol' watercooler today, that's the one people are talking the most about. Card through glass was good, but we've all seen that a million times a million different ways. I thought the water to beer thing was pretty cool, and, rather practical.

For me, these 2 shows were an improvement, especially in the material, over the first two. The buzz on the show is really great, and, as I've said before, my greatest hope for this show is that it brings magic back into the public's eye, and re-energizes our art.

[Pete Biro]

You want magic back in the public's eye... in your area... just DO GREAT STUFF and you too will contribute.

[Arnie Fuoco]

For me:

Deja Vu--outstanding
Card on window--outstanding
Frisbee--outstanding

Pen in Glass & shattered glass--Good

Needles and threads--OK
Water to Beer--Ok

Barrel escape--Anticlimatic, Never believed for a second he was in any danger

Bed of Nails--Anticlimatic, any SUV weight never seemed to be on his body

I realize it's the big stunts (Barrel & Bed of Nails) that make the moola in these specials but it's the close up and parlor effects that move me.

[MaxNY]

I really liked the bumpers (in and out of commercial slots)!! The Underwater tank out in the middle of the Salt Flats, the odd ball posse... very surreal! Great colors, Loss of sound... Terrific! It reminded me of Blaine, riding the clown bike down 7th Avenue. There are friends and posse, but these vinettes show me that, you really are alone during the performance/stunts.
Criss got yanked pretty hard by the E-Soup guys. Then again, they hit everyone hard.
Next time he says something to the likes of..."Pain... makes me feel most alive" I will down an Asprin, because that line pains me, and makes me feel most.....most, AW damn, I had something good going there, sorry.

[Pete Biro]

Ban's message says it all... RATINGS BABY!

[Richard Kaufman]

I chatted with Criss yesterday and he explained how the card on bus window was done.
Amazing.
It IS the spectator's signed card.
It IS on the outside of the bus window.
The trick was done in real time, and none of the laymen in the bus knew how it worked.

[Pete Biro]

IF he sells it... does it come with a bus, or can you use your own? :D

[Robert Allen]

Any guesses as to what percentage of the viewing population doesn't think that trick can be done without camera tricks, and thus aren't that impressed by it?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by arnie:
For me:

Deja Vu--outstanding...

I liked the basic premise. For some reason that piece felt half baked and underdeveloped. What was the anchor to the place down the hall that got them to return to it? Add that part and it would be a slightly longer segment and IMHO a stronger magical effect for the audience.

[Guest]

Pete -

I needed that -- LOLTTHK :-) *

I think you can use your own bus if it seats 30 or more.....

Gregg

*LOL till tears hit keyboard

[Ryan Matney]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
I chatted with Criss yesterday and he explained how the card on bus window was done.
Amazing.
It IS the spectator's signed card.
It IS on the outside of the bus window.
The trick was done in real time, and none of the laymen in the bus knew how it worked.

You tease.
:p

[Guest]

Whoops...sorry...getting used to the buttons.

Greetings All!

The question isn't whether Criss can perform these demonstrations in a theater. Of COURSE he can! The proper question is: "Would the theater audience have the same magical experience we had watching TV?" In many cases, the answer is: No.

Deja Vu: I LOVED it...on TV. In a theater, the same illusion performed the same way would require utterly impractical audience seating, stage set, and Criss' ability to shove his chest in everyone's face at the same time. OR, a different procedure, thus providing a different magical experience.

The second question is: Would a theater version using the exact same methods and procedures be as deceptive and entertaining as the TV version?
So, are they "camera tricks". Not necessarily. Are they tricks that can only be performed in that way for a camera? Many of them, yes.

Ultimately, though, who cares? It's Criss' vision. Enjoy it for what it IS, instead of concentrating on what it's not. When your audience asks you to perform his tricks, demure in the same way The Clash would if asked to play a Backstreet Boys tune. "It ain't my music, man."

That said, I love the shows! ESPECIALLY the desert surrealism. Watching Johnny T applaud as Criss drowns is, to me, hilarious. Not through any dislike of Criss...far from it. It just fits nicely with my warped sense of humor.

Banzai

[MaxNY]

Richard you liked the hallway stuff? I thought it reaked "Benny Hill" syndrome... the new catch phrase, as described earlier by me.

[Steve Bryant]

For those who may have forgotten, David Copperfield did a card on the outside of a train window in one of his early specials. I have methods for both (speculative), and they are different and both cool. My favorite part of Criss's was his setup, that "My brother just happened to have a deck of cards so let's try something" approach.

[Michael Kamen]

Originally posted by Robert Allen:
Any guesses as to what percentage of the viewing population doesn't think that trick can be done without camera tricks, and thus aren't that impressed by it?

No stats unfortunately, but a colleague who loves magic (she and her hubby were in Boca for a business convention, discovered Malone's and made a point to go there and loved it) gave me her unsolicited view that the cutaways were distracting and caused credibility to decline sharply. Other than that she is enjoying Mindfreak. I haven't seen it yet cause I refuse to pay for more than basic cable.

[Pete Biro]

I had a "method" figured out for DC's version and when I later saw him he said I had it nailed.

I forget where it was posted (here or Cafe?) but the RATINGS were H U G E for Criss' shows... and to me THAT IS WHAT COUNTS.

Not what magicians think.

[Ryan Matney]

Originally posted by MaxNY:
Richard you liked the hallway stuff? I thought it reaked "Benny Hill" syndrome... the new catch phrase, as described earlier by me.

Max, Could you explain further what you mean by Benny Hill syndrome? I've seen little Benny Hill and I don't follow you.

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, I liked Deja-Vu (the hallway trick with the couple) a lot.
There's absolutely no reason it could not be done live.

[Guest]

Why could deja vu not be performed as patrons are entering a theater through a hall (a la Disney's pre-shows)?

[Guest]

Deja Vu could be performed live, but if it were performed exactly the way Criss did it on tv, it could only be performed for one person at a time...or two with their heads really close together.

Maybe we need another category for tricks that are what you see is what you get, but can only be done in that way with a camera narrowly defining the audience's view.

Like the Fremont Street levitation. I'd really be interested to know the precise date and time that was shot. See, there was only a handful of people around the shot. On Fremont Street. In Las Vegas. And NO one walking up and down the street in the background.

Now, I know of a specific date and time when that could have been possible without having to get the permission of every casino on the block, plus permits, etc. And the dates seem to match up.

So, here's my question. If Criss had spent the money to CG a crowded Fremont Street to enhance the aspect of "Anyone could have wandered by" would that constitute a camera trick?

These are just ruminations. In the end, it doesn't matter. Chriss' shows are what they are, and aren't what they aren't, just like the artistic endeavors of everyone reading this post.

Banzai

[Richard Kaufman]

Banzai, Criss could perform Deja vu live, and no one expects that he would put a hallway on the stage of a theater so that only people directly in front of him could see. You don't know the method, so don't set up restrictions for something you don't understand.

The Freemont street levitation was performed at 3 a.m., which accounts for the number of people visible on the street. NO money was spent on CG--there was no money in an already-overstretched budget for anything like that.