Fool US

[Tim Furneaux]

When I fool a kid using a retention vanish coupled with a back clip to show the opposite hand empty .. and they want to be a magician? I teach them the french drop. My own opinion. It's for kids. Like Mr. Kaufman said there are far better methods to vanish a coin. P&T exposing the french drop might be creating a new generation of magicians. Or not.

[MagicbyAlfred]

One can try to candy-coat it, or justify it a million different ways, including subjective opinions of which sleights are far better than which, but exposure is exposure is exposure.

[Tim Furneaux]

Teaching magic to kids is not revealing secrets.
It is exposing them to magic. I've done a fair amount of school assembles and in classroom performances.

[Tim Furneaux]

We're still talking about the french drop? Brilliant. Blasted Magicians.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Teaching magic to kids is not revealing secrets.
It is exposing them to magic. I've done a fair amount of school assembles and in classroom performances.

Sir, I believe you misunderstood my point, or I failed to communicate it clearly. I wasn't talking about teaching magic to kids, I was referring to what Penn and Teller did.

[Yehuda]

Everyone seems to be focusing on the specific technique of the French Drop. I don’t think I really care about them exposing the French Drop, but if I did, it wouldn’t be specifically for the French Drop’s sake. It would be the idea of exposing laymen to the concept of false transfers in general, or in the case of the French Drop, a false take.

You may think it’s intuitively obvious to laymen backtracking any type of Vanish (or other effect brought about by a false transfer/take; for example, most coin effects) that it used a false transfer/take, but I don’t think that’s the case. And many laymen will not even be consciously thinking about how a vanish happened in the moment.

But once a laymen is exposed in full detail to the inner workings and mechanics of such a technique and its application, this can train their brain to think about false transfers/takes when they watch coin magic or similar tricks. Therefore, the argument of “French Drop is a bad move anyway, do other moves,” doesn’t hold up. It assumes that someone that was exposed to a French Drop will remember the precise technique and how it looks, so when he sees you do a different and better technique (for example, Al Schneider’s false transfer with a Classic Palm) he would never dream that it could be based on the same concept. Obviously, that is nonsense. I’m not suggesting that doing a very good technique well cannot get by a layman that’s familiar with the concept of false transfers/takes — sure it can — but I think that particular layman is more likely to see through it, whether they understand the exact technique you used or not. Let’s remember Aronson’s “there’s a world of difference between not knowing how something is done and knowing it’s not possible.” (And btw, as a side note, I don’t agree the French Drop is a “bad move.”)

Here’s an example with card magic. Many laymen today are not familiar with the concept of a Double Lift (before seeing one executed poorly); it’s not an obvious concept. Do you think that if those laymen were then exposed to the most basic Double Lift technique, a poor one that no one uses, with detail of the technique and examples of its application, that wouldn’t potentially affect how they see card magic after that? Would you just say “do a better Double Lift and there’s NO problem”?Once they’re familiar with the concept and what it can accomplish, it doesn’t matter if your handling is different and “better,” they may have been trained more to think about card magic in a different way. They may not retain that “knowledge” for the rest of their life, but I wouldn’t ignore it.

(Oh, and if you think it’s NOT true, and you believe that most laymen are already familiar with a Double Lift, then that’s another thing we’d disagree on.)

And to be fair to Vernon, the purpose of his exposure phase in C&B was not to show them a GOOD technique and a detailed way to do a false take; you just quickly mention the basic concept and do a very poor display of it. The point of Vernon’s is to set you up for the final load, and I’m not convinced many laymen come out of the C&B thinking, “cool, I learned a fundamental of magic today.”

Yehuda

[Brad Henderson]

There is a difference between education and exposure. Is the student capable of understanding the lesson? Is the student, given their resources and abilities, able to master the lesson? Is the student interested in the lesson? Given the logistics of the instructional format is the teacher capable of conceding the necessary information and guidance to insure the qualified (ie capable and willing) student can reasonably master said lesson?

None of these points are generally addressed by the exposers who wrap themselves in the faux cloak of educator.

Second, there is a danger in exposure - and it’s magnified by the format of this show. The show positions (at least in concept) the Primacy of fooling as the magic experience. While fooling is foundational to the magic experience, by making fooling adversarial it closes peoples minds to the artistic magic experience and focuses them instead on the craft / the puzzle aspect of what we do. (Admittedly in PT’s debunks they usually do a good job of directing the audiences attention to matters others than just fooling.)

Nevertheless, when audiences believe that magic is solely about fooling it makes the performance dynamic inherently confrontational which it need not be. And when we lead audiences to believe they already know how the trick is done, it doesn’t open them to deeper magical experiences, it closes theIr mind.

And this is born by direct experience. Years After the masked magician I overheard as fraternity boy in audience turned to his future date rape victim and informed her the magician was using a forklift
To levitate the woman on stage. Knowing the secret as he believed blinded him to the fact that this method would be impossible under these conditions. His limited knowledge closed his mind to the magic experience and he took an innocent down with him.

A magic troupe in NY used to expose kids to the double lift in their shows. Every time these kids saw a card trick they would immediately disengage because they ‘knew how it was done - the double flip’ (what they called it)and the magic moment would die. Now, one can work around this and prove them wrong, even when USING a double lift, but why inject this unnecessary hurdle into the zeitgeist when there are zero proven benefits from having done so.

The down side of exposing the French drop is - for a while - many audiences will have the chance of experiencing the magic moment Taken from them because any trick with a coin (or a vanish) will be dismissed as the French drop. And as audiences are being taught that catching the performer is the goal of magic, why would they watch a moment beyond having ‘won.’? And once they think they know the method, they don’t consider it that method is even viable.

The idea that these exposures lead to increased interest in magic or create magicians is not born out by observable evidence.

So we must ask - why do this?

The only answer I can think of is that it’s a cheap and easy way to appeal to the lowest aspect of what makes magic magic and can be done easily by even the most talentless or hacks. PT are neither talentless nor hacks. But sadly their choice only encourage the talentless hack to use magic in this manner for their personal gain, giving them excuses and justifications for poorly considered choices.

[Joe Lyons]

Everyone seems to be focusing on the specific technique of the French Drop. I don’t think I really care about them exposing the French Drop, but if I did, it wouldn’t be specifically for the French Drop’s sake. It would be the idea of exposing laymen to the concept of false transfers in general, or in the case of the French Drop, a false take.

Exactly
The next time you perform a beautiful vanish with a "good move" how many spectators will turn to another knowingly and say that's the French Drop?

(And btw, as a side note, I don’t agree the French Drop is a “bad move.”)

The only bad moves are the ones that aren't effective.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I think that those who denigrate the French Drop as a "beginner's move," or as being not a very good sleight, are overlooking the most important variable, which is the skill and artfulness of the magician. I have seen many people absolutely butcher the double lift. But does that reflect upon the sleight itself? I think not. I have seen other people do it beautifully. The same with the French Drop. Now there are touches and finesses that can make the French drop look fabulous, versus completely transparent. For instance, traditionally, the fingertips and tip of the thumb of the hand holding the coin were pointed towards the spectator, and the "take" was done with curled fingertips of the other hand with what could be described as a loosely closed fist. IMHO, that is an inartful method. I believe that it looks more elegant and, most of all, deceptive, when the fingertips and thumb of the hand holding the coin are pointed sideways (parallel to the spectator) and other hand comes over and pretends to take the coin with the fingertips of that hand. But again, the artist is the most important factor. Give the same palette of paints and a canvas to two different artists and... Need I say more?

But I will. One other comment: I would wager that those who have expressed indifference to exposure of the French Drop or any other move or method, on National TV, to over a million people, or who claim that such exposure is harmless, are not dependent upon the performance of magic for their livelihood. But I also believe that even an amateur (and there are many fine amateur magicians), should care deeply about the preservation of magic's secrets. As Joe Lyons, Yahuda and Brad pointed out, the repercussions of exposing the French Drop are much more far-reaching than just exposure of that one sleight. When the secrets of magic are widely known on a large scale, there will be no more magic. I fondly remember a sign I used to see in the brick and mortar magic shops: "The secret is told when the trick is sold." Secrets have value, like the goodwill of a business or brand. And, I'm sorry, I just don't buy the argument that mass exposure of a sleight or trick, be it on television or YouTube, is OK and can be justified because it happens to appear in print in a magic book(s).

[Jack Shalom]

The counter-argument is this: knowledgeable magicians, even P&T, are fooled all the time. Discuss.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Jack, I am trying to understand the counter-argument. Are you saying that because knowledgeable magicians are often fooled, that is a sound argument justifying exposure to millions of laymen?

[Peter Ross]

I'm not going to enter into the conversation about P&Ts French Drop routine. My views on so-called exposure are documented in other threads on this forum.

However, I will bring up the thing that bugs me the most about Fool Us - the forced admission by the performer that they did not fool P&T.
It always makes me cringe. I always feel bad and embarrassed for them. And the almost patronizing attempts by P&T (and Allison) to minimize the always awkward and discomfiting moment just makes it worse.

A magician should never have to admit it if someone knows the method. It's undignified.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I wholeheartedly agree, Peter, and the inevitability of many such awkward, discomfiting and undignified moments, just points up the fatally flawed premise of the show.

[JHostler]

... When they inevitably expose the double lift...

This "simple" sleight (and even moreso its sister "double turnover") is performed so poorly by even seasoned magicians that I'd say we've already exposed the heck out of it.

[Chris Randal2]

What if the consultants went on the show. Mike Close can fool the pants off anyone. He hurt me bad with Blizzard, Pot Hole trick and Shuffling Lesson. Would it be a fun episode to have guest consultants and we have Close on the show. Could be.a fun idea. Would have been fun to have JT perform on the show.

[Chris Randal2]

Lance doing the bird act one last time on the show !!! Please lord please one last Lance Bird act or Shimada. Please Penn and Teller close with Shimadas bird act.

[Bill Duncan]

I wholeheartedly agree, Peter, and the inevitability of many such awkward, discomfiting and undignified moments, just points up the fatally flawed premise of the show.

The "fatally flawed" premise of one of the most successful magic shows on television? Sigh... the most successful Star Trek series only got 7 seasons. I think Fool Us is doing something right. Lay audiences don't decide if they like the magic AFTER they find out of Penn and Teller were fooled.

If people like the magic and then find out a couple of minutes later that it didn't fool Penn and Teller, do you think they change their minds and decide they were wrong about liking it?

Does it not occur to people that the entire point of the show is that it fooling someone is only a small part of what makes great magic... great? How often does Penn heap praise on a PERFORMER who didn't fool them?

[AJM]

I saw what you did there Bill...

[MagicbyAlfred]

Sorry Bill D., but the show's commercial success does not refute Peter's point (with which I concur) that the experience for many performers on the show ends up to be awkward, and even humiliating, when they are forced to admit that they did not fool P & T and that P & T sussed out their method. In fact, the size of the audience (both in the studio and viewers on TV) only amplifies the performers' failure and degradation. Admittedly, by coming onto the show, contestants expose themselves to the degradation. However, if the "Fool Us" part is only a very small component of the show, as you suggest, why make it the title, have Alison say "Let's see if X can fool Penn and Teller," and have a big trophy giveaways only for the ones who "fooled" them? That's entirely inconsistent with your argument "that the entire point of the show is that fooling someone is only a small part of what makes great magic... great?" I must be missing something because I fail to see how that's the "entire point of the show."

[MagicbyAlfred]

PS Commercial success means nothing. (See, e.g., Disco).

[JHostler]

…once again proving Charlie Miller’s old maxim, “As logicians and philosophers, magicians make great cat sitters.” That performance was nothing less than a love letter to future magicians. The premise of the show is superb, both the hosts and producers want nothing but the best for magic as an art/craft, and the purported "exposure" was insubstantial. Oh, and Penn and Teller are geniuses. The End.

[Jack Shalom]

Jack, I am trying to understand the counter-argument. Are you saying that because knowledgeable magicians are often fooled, that is a sound argument justifying exposure to millions of laymen?

There is an argument that exposing a sleight like the French Drop introduces the whole idea of false transfers; the counter-argument is, so what, magicians know about false transfers and can still be fooled when the appropriate sleight is executed well in the appropriate circumstances.

In the particular case of the French Drop, which is never used by pros in the way that laypeople think it is used, I would say the back-of-the-cereal-box exposure is actually helpful to magicians--laypeople are going to be looking for the wrong thing.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... the experience for many performers on the show ends up to be awkward, and even humiliating, when they are forced to admit that they did not fool P & T and that P & T sussed out their method. In fact, the size of the audience (both in the studio and viewers on TV) only amplifies the performers' failure and degradation. ...

Of the performers who appeared on the show - who has expressed such an opinion?

[MagicbyAlfred]

... the experience for many performers on the show ends up to be awkward, and even humiliating, when they are forced to admit that they did not fool P & T and that P & T sussed out their method. In fact, the size of the audience (both in the studio and viewers on TV) only amplifies the performers' failure and degradation. ...

Of the performers who appeared on the show - who has expressed such an opinion?

In order to be in a position to answer that, I would need to have been at all their dinner tables, all their bedrooms (which would surely creep them out), at their offices, all their vehicles, at all their gyms, and everywhere else, with all of them, 24/7, over the past 7 years. Not to mention that people can feel an emotion without necessarily expressing it -- especially publicly.

I am simply expressing my own.

[Peter Ross]

Of the performers who appeared on the show - who has expressed such an opinion?

Why would any performer who appeared on the show publicly bite the hand that fed them?

Having the performers admit to not fooling P&T is especially awful to watch (for me) when it is a signature piece from a well-established pro.
"Great performance! Really wonderful! You didn't fool us, but really great performance." And then from Alison, "Awwww." The performer slinks off the stage.

I'll tell you that my nine-year-old son judges the quality of the performances on that show by who fools P&T or not. Mission accomplished, P&T? It's partly the nature of making art competitive. There are always losers, no matter how you sugarcoat it. Good reading on this topic is Alfie Kohn's book "No Contest: The Case Against Competition" https://www.alfiekohn.org/contest/

PS - For those magicians worried that the French Drop piece exposes laymen to the fact that magicians use their hands when performing magic, might I suggest you stop using your hands when performing magic.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Winners and Losers - that's the mentality that is engendered and exploited in people in the good ole USA. It appeals to the baser part of human nature. We even have it in schools from day 1: Sally is an "A" student, and she is "honored," while little Bobby, who routinely gets C's, just didn't make the grade - and now feels inferior.

BTW, I suspected that Peter wouldn't be able to keep his pledge about not jumping in to the exposure aspect of this discussion. As to his suggestion that magicians who are concerned about exposure of the French drop should just "stop using their hands when performing magic," my understanding of the concerns voiced by several magicians on this thread (including yours truly) is not, as Peter has characterized it -- that they are "worried that the French Drop piece exposes laymen to the fact that magicians use their hands when performing magic." The point made earlier in this discussion was clearly that any kind of vanish of a coin or small object by magicians based on a false transfer (whether it be the French drop, retention vanish, classic palm vanish, finger palm vanish, or others) will simply be generically dismissed by the exposees as, "Oh he did the French drop" or, at minimum a fake transfer. That being said, I should add that, amazingly, when I started practicing my one-coin routine today, my hands actually did leave my wrists!

[Yehuda]

I personally have never felt a performer’s “failure” to fool them was embarrassing and degrading. I have heard many people that appeared on Fool Us talk about their experience and NONE of them seem disappointed or “embarrassed” about not fooling them. In fact, I think many of the people go on for the exposure, challenge of performing on a big stage, etc., with zero goal of fooling them (although that is a nice bonus). You can say they’re all just covering up for how they really feel, but I think that’s ridiculous.

Now, back to the exposure of the French Drop. It seems some of you think that everyone that saw this episode, even without being genuinely interested in the move and practicing it afterward, will instantly recognize these exact actions when they see them again, and that this will both hurt a future magic trick they see that uses the French Drop, and help later magic they see that doesn’t use it because the spectator will be specifically looking for it.

Look, I’m never one to think spectators are stupid, but I think you are giving their memory way too much credit here. If all they did is watch this episode, I don’t think they gained anything, negatively or positively, regarding this specific technique. It’s just not how people’s minds work (our minds included, except we’re more educated than laymen). How many times have you explained a Double Lift to your wife, and then still deceive her with the exact same Double Lift the next day? I’m sure you’ve experienced that, and it’s not cuz your wife is stupid.

However, I DO think it potentially could open their mind and they may be more likely to retain the broader idea of “false transfers/takes,” which could be hurtful to future magic they see, REGARDLESS what technique is used. (See my post above.) People seem to be ignoring this point.

Yehuda

[Joe Lyons]

Some things are just bad ideas.

Playing in the street is a bad idea.
Some might argue: Pedestrians have the right of way, and the law is on your side if you play in the street.
Others might say: This road isn't as busy as other roads so it's ok to play on this one.
It's still a bad idea.

Exposing secrets in an art/hobby/profession that is based on secrets is a bad idea.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Some things are just bad ideas.

Playing in the street is a bad idea.
Some might argue: Pedestrians have the right of way, and the law is on your side if you play in the street.
Others might say: This road isn't as busy as other roads so it's ok to play on this one.
It's still a bad idea.

Exposing secrets in an art/hobby/profession that is based on secrets is a bad idea.

Very well said, Joe! I am having difficulty believing that there are magicians who are vehemently DEFENDING or trying to rationalize exposure. To me, that's like a cop defending unlawful conduct. And, Yahuda, I did not ignore your point, but reiterated it and supported it several times, including in my post previous to this one. Moreover, if I had a wife, I would not expose the double lift even to her - but I guess I'm just old-fashioned.

[Yehuda]

Got ya, MagicByAlfred. I wasn’t directing anything at you, just the overall vibe I was getting from the thread. And yeah, I knew I was gonna get some flack about sharing methods with spouses. It’s easy to say you wouldn’t. But the initial exposure may not even be intentional. If you’re practicing something on her, and she sees the same trick with the same moves a few times in a row, she can sense a pattern, even if the technique is good. Your audiences are the same way. Like Dani DaOrtiz says, “you are training your audience,” even if you did the technique flawlessly.

Yehuda

[JFox]

I like the show for the Variety (generes) of Magic performances that are showcased to the viewers (Stage illusions; Sleights; Close-up; Escapes; Mentalism, etc.).

My one tiny gripe....

Most of the time, P&T make their "explanations" subtle enough:

* P&T: "You can take that to the BANK!" ("bank" of cards)

* P&T: "That reminds me of "THUMPER", in Disney's Bambi film" (electronic thumping pulse)


But other times, they are more direct, which I selfishly wish they weren't. One recent example:

P&T: "That's the "Grandmother's Necklace" principle"....but they easily could have said: "So good, that even Grandmas would like it".

Overall, I very much enjoy the show.

....

[Bill Duncan]

In any event there are tons of commercially successful magicians who have done very well without ever exposing a single trick.

There are tons of the "commercially successful" magicians who are are kind of crap, doing someone else's tricks, with someone else's patter. Often without permission.

So, that's also true, I guess.

Not sure what the point of either statement is.

[Bill Duncan]

I am having difficulty believing that there are magicians who are vehemently DEFENDING or trying to rationalize exposure. To me, that's like a cop defending unlawful conduct.

Bad analogy man. Cops are hired by someone else, and need to follow the rules of their assigned work. Just like coders have to use the structure imposed on them by their team lead, or the head software designer.

Artists are usually self employed, and should be free to push the boundaries of their art. In fact it should be expected of them.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Bill Duncan Wrote: "Artists are usually self employed, and should be free to push the boundaries of their art. In fact it should be expected of them."

Self-employed, employed by someone, or unemployed: Magicians who engage in exposure don't "push" the boundaries of our art; it destroys them. And obviously, the so-called "artists" to whom you refer are completely "free" to engage in exposure, and nobody is stopping them; but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

[Tom Stone]

And an integral part of that art drilled into every beginner is NEVER TELL HOW A TRICK IS DONE! The second you go against this is the second you are degrading your art.

And in the very same book Maskelyne told how tricks were done and, by his own definitions, degraded his art.

[Jonathan Townsend]

About that moment when folks find out if they fooled P&T - that's the hook of the show, the performers know it, and ... so what? What criticism they give is asked for and auditioned.

If you are working in character and not setting up a con/lure - agreed - showing backstage when they paid to see the show
is unprofessional.

The carnival/festival/circus comes to town is not the norm for behavior. P&T have always been sideshow and a little loud. And they have always been doing deceptive magic. When Penn "cuts the string" on that red floating ball - that's a joke.

Art (not that academic commentary stuff but actually selling your work) is a business. Until very recently it was unthinkable to get a known artist to sign your garage wall or to establish a brand by installing them as an act of performance - but look at the prices of Banksy's works.

[Tom Moore]

I find it very interesting that dozens of performers presenting brilliant, original, creative, entertaining COMMERCIAL performances produced a dozen or so comments on this board, but the idea that P&T might have vaguely exposed the 101 of magic secrets has produced dozens of outraged posts very indicative of the misplaced view most magicians have about the art and industry as a whole.

[Joe Lyons]

I find it very interesting that dozens of performers presenting brilliant, original, creative, entertaining COMMERCIAL performances produced a dozen or so comments on this board, but the idea that P&T might have vaguely exposed the 101 of magic secrets has produced dozens of outraged posts very indicative of the misplaced view most magicians have about the art and industry as a whole.

Oh, I doubt it is indicative of that.

I think people are just more likely to remark on the negative.

[Brad Henderson]

Or it could be that many people here don’t watch the show but still have legitimate interest in the issue or exposure and how it impacts magic as an art and the ramifications it might have in ones own work.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I find it very interesting that dozens of performers presenting brilliant, original, creative, entertaining COMMERCIAL performances produced a dozen or so comments on this board, but the idea that P&T might have vaguely exposed the 101 of magic secrets has produced dozens of outraged posts very indicative of the misplaced view most magicians have about the art and industry as a whole.

No, that is not true. They did not "vaguely" expose the French Drop. They did so very expressly, specifically by name, and with a detailed demonstration. And, can you point me to the alleged "dozens" of outraged posts? I can't seem to find them. Finally, I take it that you believe your view of the "art and industry" to be superior to that of most magicians?