| Go to page 1 ~ 2 (Next) |
|
|
filmyak
Regular user
Los Angeles
148 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2002 3:35pm
Question for everyone about "Magic Secrets Revealed" specials that have aired on Fox. I'm sure there have been some discussions on this here already, but I have a slightly different vantage point/question.
I make my living as a TV editor, and the executive producer I work with does other shows with a partner. The show I'm working on is almost over, and the exec has recommended me to this partner for more work.
Well, his sometimes partner is the guy who produced all the "Magic Revealed" specials, so we started talking about them. I said I (obviously) thought they were terrible things to put on the air, since they robbed people of their livelihood. He said if I hated that, I'd hate the latest special they are making: Psychic secrets revealed.
I know, this is getting long, but there's more to say. =) I explained that I had no trouble revealing psychic's secrets, since that was a line of work that claimed to be telling the truth, and which used these techniques to take people's money under the pretense of being reality. I compared it to a seminar I took last year that showed how techniques used in magic to entertain, can also be used to scam people around the world (like pyschic surgery and various other scams).
In other words, magic on stage or for friends is just for entertainment. The mere title is basically TELLING you it's all a lie. "Hi, we're doing magic TRICKS/ILLUSIONS for you today. Buy a ticket and come on in." Versus "Let me take your money while I pretend to predict the future/remove a tumor and tell you it's all real."
Clear cut difference, right? Those specials simply reveal harmless entertainment tricks because some masked magician wants to make some extra bucks.
Then he told me a shocker. Maybe this is common knowledge, but I was blown away. He told me that none of the magicians in the show had any trouble with giving away the secrets. That's right, there isn't one masked magician, it's a series of people each revealing a different trick. Apparently, SEVERAL professional magicians have no trouble giving their own secrets away.
What gives? Any comments on this by you folks?
And I've also been playing a mental game with myself: what if they were to ask me to edit the next show in the series, assuming there is one? Would I do it? Keep in mind two things: work in this industry is sporradic at best, and it would help keep food on my table. And second, if I were to turn it down, guaranteed they'd have another editor ready to take over in about 5-minutes. My involvement or lack thereof would have no bearing on the making of the show. But still, I'm not sure I could be party to something like that. Just curious for various opinions on this long, rambling post. =)
|
Kathryn Novak
Special user
PA
576 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2002 4:09pm
There is a huge difference between telling someone you can cure their cancer/remove their tumor and not doing it and finding a number they had picked. The audience for the magic show KNOWS it isn't real, versus a "patient" who hopes against hope that the person "performing" the "surgery" will be able to cure what can't be cured. And the "magicians" who told those secrets definitely weren't professionals if they "gave" away the secrets. If anything they sold them to Fox for a pretty hefty price. And these specials are not exactly harmless- People could spend years developing a new killer effect. They gain enough fame with that effect to perform their own magic special, only to have the effect revealed on another type of "special." There are several who make a living off of magic. For them, it's the only way they have to put bread on the table. So they have to spend more time and energy that could have been spent performing developing new effects, only to have THOSE revealed. It's a vicious cycle.
If anyone sees my sanity, please return it to
me.
|
filmyak
Regular user
Los Angeles
148 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2002 5:21pm
In case I didn't make myself clear, I totally agree there's a huge difference between scamming people and doing a magic show, which is why I am so opposed to the revealing specials.
And yes, the magicians in the special DID get paid to do the show, of course! I had just assumed it was one magician with loose ethics, so I was very surprised to find out that in reality it was SEVERAL magicians who had no problem revealing the secrets under cover of a mask.
|
Garrett Nelson
Special user
644 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2002 7:48pm
I would be willing to bet the effects they revealed were ones they don't currently use.
|
Kathryn Novak
Special user
PA
576 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2002 8:28pm
I'm not surprised at the number. Some people just can't keep a secret. On the other hand, how much do these shows really "expose?" Most of the ones I saw had only theories on how the effects were performed or showed effects that were mass-marketed to the public anyway.
If anyone sees my sanity, please return it to
me.
|
Enigma3613
New user
California
61 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2002 4:55am
Of course, you also have to look at how the "Psychic Secrets Revealed" special will hurt legitimate mentalist magicians who admit to being fake, but use these secrets for their livelihood.
Of course the other side of the coin is that this forces magic (and mentalism) to evolve and become even more impossible. It just becomes harder to stay ahead if these specials come out more frequently.
- Robert Doidge
|
Kathryn Novak
Special user
PA
576 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2002 3:25pm
True, a "psychic secrets revealed" special could probably do quite a bit of harm to Mentalist magic, since I really haven't seen too many effects marketed for that particular branch.
If anyone sees my sanity, please return it to
me.
|
Paul Chosse
V.I.P.
1955 - 2010
2389 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2002 5:18pm
There are those who might suggest that revealing a secret forces us to develop new tricks or methods - it could be a good thing!
Others could argue that, once a few tricks are revealed, all tricks are dismissed as the puzzles they become with exposition.
My experience is that it really doesn't matter. I was reading about exposure in 1936 Genii magazines when I was 9, and I'm still reading about exposure in Genii magazine, and other places, 40 years later. In all those years I have never done a trick and had a spectator say "hey, I remember that from the guy on TV that showed how everything is done!"
Maybe I'm just lucky, maybe the tricks look different in context and in real life, maybe spectators' are just dumb, maybe I have only worked for Alzhiemer patients. But I doubt all those things.
I think the fact is it's just not that important to anyone! Let's face it, we're talking tricks here, not open-heart surgery, or nuclear disaster. People just don't take us as seriously as we take ourselves!
Have some fun, don't point it (exposure) up by ranting about it, and it will go away, be forgotten, or just not impact you at your next show.
By the way, you don't see any of the BIG acts (Copperfield, S&R, Lance Burton, etc.) protesting in the media, or elswhere for that matter, don't you wonder why?
Just rambling, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
christopher carter
Special user
660 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2002 5:40pm
Quote:
|
By the way, you don't see any of the BIG acts (Copperfield, S&R, Lance Burton, etc.) protesting in the media, or elswhere for that matter, don't you wonder why?
Just rambling, PSC
|
|
In fact, Copperfield threatened Fox with legal action if they tried to expose his illusions. I would call that a protest, and apparently an effective one.
I perform mostly for college students, and hardly a day goes by where I don't hear one or more explain to his friends how something he saw on one of those Fox specials was done.
After the first expose show, an illusion team I was acquainted with had several shows cancelled because, according to the colleges who cancelled, now all the students would know how the tricks were done.
I think expose efforts are harmful. They always have been, and always will be. Happily, the harm seems to be temporary, but thanks to cable, repeats, and the large volume of expose shows, the damage caused seems to be increasing.
You are right that the exposes need to be put into some sort of perspective, but in no way can they be seen as good. I see two ways to remedy the problem: One is to retreat into ever smaller, more closed associations, and start treating secrets with due reverence. A second is physical violence toward the perpetrators of the exposes. I advocate the former, but reserve a soft spot in my heart for anyone who might try the latter.
--Christopher Carter
|
Kathryn Novak
Special user
PA
576 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2002 5:52pm
2002-1936= 66 years. Your math is a bit off. And the fact is that these specials expose methods of magic to millions of viewers. That they're making new shows and rerunning old ones proves it. If the audience sees enough of it they WILL start to remember. And that's where the exposure problem comes into play. Exposure will always be a problem in magic, it won't go away simply because we quit talking about it. As to the reason why the big acts don't complain about it: The illusions performed by the real pros aren't the small stuff they're revealing on the shows. But lets say they start to reveal the big illusions- the stuff that puts bread on the table for people like Copperfield and Blaine. Magic has to reinvent itself. It can be good occasionally, but would you want a killer effect you spent a year developing casually exposed on prime time tv to an audience of millions?
If anyone sees my sanity, please return it to
me.
|
ChrisZampese
Veteran user
Hamilton, NZ
341 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2002 8:05pm
I always assumed that 'the' masked magician was more than one person. I also assume that (especially now the series is such a success) some producer/director/writer type person just does a bit of homework about some effects, and then gets an actor to 'be' the magician.
Given the budget that TV shows work with it would not be hard for them to find out any 'secrets' that they may want.
Dont know if any of this is correct, but food for thought anyway.
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are
|
Paul Chosse
V.I.P.
1955 - 2010
2389 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2002 8:36am
1) My math is fine. I didn't say I was reading CURRENT issues!
2) Happy to see you disagree!
Best, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
Magicrma
New user
Arizona
100 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2002 9:52am
Magic has been used to promote and sell everything from cigarettes to election candidates. Magic tricks were given away printed in newspapers, on cigarette cards, on and in cereal boxes, by promoters of all kinds of stuff. Anyone can go to a magic shop and buy what ever they have the money to pay for. To keep magic secrets, the magic society would have to limit the access to those secrets. There are alot of people how thing if they paid for it it's their's and they can do anything they want with it short of murder. So if MacDonalds wants to give away magic tricks in their kids meals they simply buy a trick, make it with a MacDonald's theme and put it in the bag. They think it's okay, they paid for it. It is very hard to control Intellectual property with current copyright laws. If you don't believe me ask the computer software industry.
If the producers of the "---- Secrets Revealed" specials researched or pay for the information they are going to use it.
I think that if you find yourself in a position where you feel that the show is wrong, let them know.
(soap box time)
If enough of the magic society let them know, they will change the show or not do any more. As a group the magic society is quite large and as a group we can effect change.
(off the box)
Good luck, filmyak, you are in a unique position.
MagicRMA
"The art of Illusion is at least 95% applied psychology" Henning Nelms (Magic & Showmanship)
MagicRMA
Majicrma@msn.com
|
filmyak
Regular user
Los Angeles
148 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 5:21am
"If enough of the magic society let them know, they will change the show or not do any more. As a group the magic society is quite large and as a group we can effect change.
(off the box)
Good luck, filmyak, you are in a unique position. "
Thanks for the well wishes, and the lively discussion from everyone. I just have to state the sad news that there is no way the magic society in this country would get Fox to stop making these. It's ALL ratings, and Fox... well, let's just say ratings are far more important than ethics. That's true for all networks, but more true for some networks than others. 'Nuff said. 
|
Peter Marucci
Inner circle
5388 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 6:29am
Why do we make such a big deal about magic "secrets"?
This isn't rocket science, after all.
If a person is so bereft of original thought, that a TV show is going to put him out of business, then maybe he shouldn't be in the business to start with!
The secret is such a tiny part of the magic!
I have said it before but will say it again:
Anyone who thinks the magic is in the secret, might as well take a piano apart to look for the music!
|
Kathryn Novak
Special user
PA
576 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 9:49am
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 06:29, Peter Marucci wrote:
Why do we make such a big deal about magic "secrets"?
If a person is so bereft of original thought, that a TV show is going to put him out of business, then maybe he shouldn't be in the business to start with!
|
|
You're right, Peter, one show can't really do all that much harm. But if the network decides to make it a nightly television series, I'd say THEN we would have a problem. There are only so many illusions in the world, ya know. The magic does reside in the performer, but even the performer needs a little help from his props to make the magic happen!
If anyone sees my sanity, please return it to
me.
|
christopher carter
Special user
660 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 12:48pm
Quote:
|
The secret is such a tiny part of the magic!
I have said it before but will say it again:
Anyone who thinks the magic is in the secret, might as well take a piano apart to look for the music!
|
|
Peter,
I'm sorry to have to disagree, but you're dead wrong! The secret is the fundamental bedrock on which our magic is built. Without the secret, there is no magic. Period!
If it's so unimportant, why don't you just give away your secrets before your show, then wait to see how much the audience enjoys your "presentation?" I'm confident you will agree that's not a tenable option.
We are curators of the secrets that were handed to us by our forbears. These secrets are not ours to give away!
--Christopher Carter
|
Burt Yaroch
Inner circle
Dallas,TX
1097 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 1:41pm
Said the man advocating physical violence against these exposers. At least, in that light, your opinions that you present as absolute herein seem to loose their luster.
I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Peter (making me dead wrong too I suppose). While my analogy lacks the poetry of Peters piano, let me offer to you another form of entertainment exposed: film.
By George Lucas' own admission the Yoda character is not a real person. Formerly a puppet and now just a bunch of ones and zeros. That didn't stop any of the millions who saw him on screen be pulled into his backwards spoken wisdom or lightsaber acrobatics, despite our foreknowledge of his lack of physical substance.
The secret wasn't the magic. It was, and will remain, the performance.
Yakworld.
|
Lance Pierce
Special user
Oklahoma City OK
814 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 2:41pm
The true secrets of magic can never be revealed. Any audience member will allow that while they may not know how <insert name of favorite stage magician here> did that last effect, they're pretty sure it had something to do with that box. The box is not the real secret. The real secret lies in the way the performer, whether close-up, stage, platform, or television, engages the audience.
Now, it can be said that the boxes or the cards or the whatever are part of the tools we use to create this relationship with the audience, and by their losing their effectiveness, the entire performance suffers. Well, yes, I can allow this, but I also know that exposure has been going on for as long as magic has existed, and here we are, still stuffing girls in boxes, still having cards selected.
Here's what I've noted: People more and more are desiring of magicians, because we're about the only place left that they can find any sense of wonder these days -- us, and that powerful, wonder-inspiring movie that comes along once a decade or so. The more exposure we encounter, the more they turn to us, because the exposure threatens to take that wonder away, and they really, really want us to provide it.
I mean, they really do.
L-
Recharmed, I'm Sure - A new handling for a modern classic.
|
christopher carter
Special user
660 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 3:00pm
Lance and Burt,
If secrets are so unimportant, why then may I not expose yours? (And, Burt, note that I wouldn't, because just like my 'physical violence' comment, this one is not meant to be taken literally.)
--Christopher Carter
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 13:41, Burt Yaroch wrote:
Said the man advocating physical violence against these exposers. At least, in that light, your opinions that you present as absolute herein seem to loose their luster.
|
|
BTW, I explicity said I did not advocate physical violence against exposers, in spite of the fact that a part of me, deep down, would like to see it done. It's similar to what comedians are known to do to someone who steals their material. They haul the guy into a back alley and beat him up. I wouldn't do it, don't in reality approve of it, but on an emotional level, I think it just.
--Christopher Carter
|
Lance Pierce
Special user
Oklahoma City OK
814 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 3:30pm
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 15:00, christopher carter wrote:
Lance and Burt,
If secrets are so unimportant, why then may I not expose yours? (And, Burt, note that I wouldn't, because just like my 'physical violence' comment, this one is not meant to be taken literally.)
--Christopher Carter
|
|
Christopher,
I don't think you're fully appreciating where I'm coming from. People already know that it's something about the box or something about the cards or some kind of sleight of hand...they already know this very well. So, if by "exposing my secrets," you mean exposing the mechanics of how an effect works, by all means, feel free. You can tell them how equivoque works, and we (meaning either you or I) can still fool them with it. You can tell them about the thumbtip, and we can still fool them with it. You can tell them about crimping cards and side steals and everything else, and it won't matter, because there's always a way to reframe, to change the moment, to couch these principles in something else. What makes them work is not the sleights or the gimmicks, but the way in which we relate to the audience, human to human. It's not only possible to fool people with what they know; sometimes it's easier...but it does sometimes require some thought first.
What I'm suggesting is that what many think of as the "secrets of magic" -- the methods -- aren't actually the REAL secrets of magic.
Despite the Masked Magician, and literally dozens if not hundreds of incidents of exposure I've witnessed in my lifetime, people still come to the magicians. And magic keeps going. Am I saying that exposure is harmless? No. Am I saying that it absolutely doesn't matter? Not quite. I'm saying that I accept it, and for all the concern and angst, magic hasn't suffered very much over the last two or three thousand years.
Besides, I strongly suspect the bulk of the ratings Fox is enjoying are from magicians tuning in. I've yet to have a layperson tell me that they've intentionally tuned in to watch one of the shows or sat all the way through one. From what I can tell, for the most part, it's just generally not that interesting to them.
Cheers,
Lance
Recharmed, I'm Sure - A new handling for a modern classic.
|
Paul Chosse
V.I.P.
1955 - 2010
2389 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 3:49pm
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 15:00, christopher carter wrote:
Lance and Burt,
If secrets are so unimportant, why then may I not expose yours?
--Christopher Carter
|
|
This is a form of faulty logic known as "begging the question". It assumes as part of your answer something not stated by the other party. Niether of the people you quote ask that thier secrets not be revealed, in fact they seem to be saying or implying quite the opposite.
You also say that we are curators of the secrets, that they are not ours to give away. That seems to me to be a moral imperative that you are not free to impose on others - live it if you believe it, but others may not agree.
Best, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
Burt Yaroch
Inner circle
Dallas,TX
1097 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 3:56pm
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 15:16, christopher carter wrote:
BTW, I explicity said I did not advocate physical violence against exposers, in spite of the fact that a part of me, deep down, would like to see it done. |
|
Yes I apologize Chris. You didn't advocate physical violence. You simply presented it as a remedy to exposure and then reserved "a soft spot in my heart for anyone who might try (it)." I fail to see any further explicitness in your statement. I think that's why we keep those thoughts deep down.
I completely agree with Lance's reply and would take it even further. You simply cannot expose my rapport with my audience. You can't expose the comedy, the suspense, how I draw them in. If you were to tell them right before my performance what I was going to do and how it was done that would be fine. I'll lead them down that garden path you cut for me and turn the hoze on them with a completely new revelation, making my effect all the more powerful as you became an unwitting part of my drama.
If you proceeded as a heckler and shouted out secrets upon each conclusion my audience would largely turn on you because they don't care about the secret. It was the performace that engaged them. But you still couldn't expose me. If you said I was going to to a double lift I'll do a triple to prove you wrong. I can execute the same thing in dozens of different ways all to stay either one ahead or one behind you.
And well said Paul.
Yakworld.
|
Dennis Michael
Inner circle
Atco, NJ
5971 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 4:09pm
Are we so insecure that the secret is so important that we spend lots of time in the Banquet room, writing about it and defending it.
The TT (I am not allowed to write thumb tip) is in just about every magic kit, and sold in every novelity store, yet, it is still one of the most powerful tricks in any magician's collection. Who doesn't own a TT? I've got so many and with a glue gun, it becomes something else.
I fully agree with Peter here and his analogy is a good one.
Do a coin trick in front of a six year old and he will tell you where it is, but itamazes an adult because of the way the mind thinks. Every kid knows how every trick is done, if you don't believe it ask them. They might not be right but from their perspective they are right until proven wrong then they have an alternative solution.
Sawing a person in half is in so many library books and we still do it in our shows, Why? The secret is know! We wouldn't be in business but in prison if we really cut someone in half. It is in the presentation. Presentation is everything.
Why do musicians get the bucks. Look at their presentation, a magician who does the same with the singing also can get the bucks. It is in the entertainment where the value lies.
Dennis Michael, Atco, NJ (856)768-2281
KIDabra Chapter #1
Facebook
Email: DennisMichael@KIDabra1.org
|
christopher carter
Special user
660 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 4:33pm
Lance,
Thanks for the reply. I do actually know where you're coming from. I don't disagree that one can usually find a way to make old principles deceptive in a new way, nor, clearly, do I disagree that there are a host of intangibles that separate the performance from the 'method.'
The fact that magic performance still exists after decades of exposes speaks both to the adaptability of magic and, more importantly, to the forgetfulness of the general public. I strongly believe, however, that the Fox programs continue to do considerable damage. Perhaps it is because I make my living by performing for the most media savvy demographic, but there are a couple of very valuable techniques that are temporarily hindered, if not rendered entirely off limits.
I understand your claim that you can be deceptive with your tricks even if the specific method has been exposed. Even though you are noted as a very clever magician, I doubt you would be pleased if somebody did that at a random occasion, directly before a performance. Under this circumstance, you might not know in advance how you would have to adapt your technique. This, however, is basically what is happening thanks to cable and repeats.
Now your stance, it happens, is rather different from Burt's or Peter's. Peter's analogy with the piano, or Burt's with the movies--both are, in my opinion, false analogies. Deceptiveness is essential to magic as a performing craft. To be a true-seeming mystery, the method must be hidden. If it isn't, it isn't magic, but something else. It isn't important to the Star Wars saga that Yoda be perceived as a real creature, but it is important to our magic that it be perceived as temporarily real. (I think you know that I'm not talking about whether the audience really does think that it is real, although in good mentalism this does happen, and is a worthwhile goal.) All the impact of our presentational skills is predicated on the fact that what we are presenting is an opaque mystery. In this sense, secrets, methods, are fundamental. Without them we are "presenting" nothing resembling magic.
If I were to preceed your performance with an explanation of your methods, it would destroy it, no matter how skilled your work, because it would focus your audience in precisely the wrong direction. Having been forwarned and forearmed, they would be distracted from involvement in whatever compelling fiction you would be trying to create. What we are trying to accomplish is theatrically different from drama, film, narrative, etc. To borrow from Peter's analogy, music may exist separately beyond the piano, but piano music is impossible without it. So illusion is impossible without secrets.
Of course magic will survive the repeated exposures of Fox and many others. However, the fact that the Fox exposures can be as comprehensive, or as impactful, as they are is really a symptom of an increasing lack of respect for secrets. Every amateur now feels that he is entitled to secrets, and that the value of a performer only lies in what books or videos he's produced, or what tricks he's invented. Secrets are now cheap currency, Pennies at best. The results are, I think, devastating for magic, in part because of the ironic twist that the cheapening of secrets reduces the ability to focus on the performance or theater of it all.
I'm not asking you, Burt, or Peter, to agree with my points, but I passionately believe magic would be better served if you did.
--Christopher Carter
|
Burt Yaroch
Inner circle
Dallas,TX
1097 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 4:47pm
And I respect that.
But as Peter and I are not exposing secrets or condoning those who do, I don't think magic will be effected either way.
However if you would agree with our points  , specifically that despite exposure, in defiance of exposure, we will find a way to continue to enchant and amaze...we will invent, modify, explore and move beyond that exposed, both in our method and performance...now I think, passionately so, magic will be better for it. 
Yakworld.
|
christopher carter
Special user
660 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 5:01pm
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 15:49, pchosse wrote:
This is a form of faulty logic known as "begging the question". It assumes as part of your answer something not stated by the other party. Niether of the people you quote ask that thier secrets not be revealed, in fact they seem to be saying or implying quite the opposite.
You also say that we are curators of the secrets, that they are not ours to give away. That seems to me to be a moral imperative that you are not free to impose on others - live it if you believe it, but others may not agree.
Best, PSC
|
|
Paul,
I am sorry that you, Burt, or Lance are offended by my disagreement, but I still disagree. I am pleased, however, that in practice all of you are known to treat secrets with considerably more reverence than you seem to imply.
Is my query faulty logic? I suppose, yet I still believe that Lance or Burt would have serious problems with my coming to their shows to expose their methods. Burt I don't know, but you and Lance are both known as 'inner circle' card guys. Presumably it is the nature of an inner circle that access to secrets is limited, which of course I highly respect. To me, your actions belie your stated opinions.
I also agree that I am stating a moral imperative. I do live it, just as I believe it. Espousing a moral view is not the same thing, though, as imposing it on others. I can offer no other sanction than withholding my association, and that's not exactly extreme force. Happily in America I am free to expect whatever moral behavior in others that I choose.
--Chris
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 16:47, Burt Yaroch wrote:
And I respect that.
However if you would agree with our points , specifically that despite exposure, in defiance of exposure, we will find a way to continue to enchant and amaze...we will invent, modify, explore and move beyond that exposed, both in our method and performance...now I think, passionately so, magic will be better for it.
|
|
I was under the impression that I already had agreed with those points.
--Chris
|
Lance Pierce
Special user
Oklahoma City OK
814 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 5:08pm
Chris,
Now that was a great response. I don't think we're as far apart in view as some observers might think.
If I conveyed a cavalier attitude toward the importance of keeping our methods secret (and therefore intact), I didn't mean to. My thrust is that we can never guarantee that such things will always be kept hidden from the public, despite our best efforts, and while we're much better off striving to do so, it's more important that we're able to adapt when we can't. If we don't have faith in our ability to create anew, to mold ourselves to those things that lie outside of our control, and to meet any difficult or unpleasant circumstance, that's when magic will begin to die.
Would I be displeased if someone were to expose my effects just prior to my doing them? Perhaps puzzled would be more like it…maybe -- no, probably -- even offended by the disrespect, but not as concerned about the methods themselves. Indeed, I've encountered the rare person when I was working restaurants who thought it fun to expose what they thought were the methods I was using. Once in a great while, they were right. The critical thing for me, though, was not to preserve the secret, but the performance and the relationship with the audience, and sometimes that relies far less on the trick than some think.
By the way, if you're the Christopher Carter I think you are (http://www.mindcramp.com/), then your reputation precedes you. If we ever run into each other, I look forward to having the pants fooled off of me.
Thanks for giving me some great things to think about,
Lance
p.s. I'm known as an inner circle card guy? I wasn't aware I was known as an inner circle card guy. Who do I complain to about this?
Recharmed, I'm Sure - A new handling for a modern classic.
|
Paul Chosse
V.I.P.
1955 - 2010
2389 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 5:31pm
Christopher,
I'm offended that you left me out of the "Inner Circle"! Seriously though I'm not offended that you disagree, in fact I posted to the effect that I was happy to see that you and others do! I think it was Samuel Johnson who said that "when men smile and agree, progress weeps!". I guess I was trying to point out the same type of things as Lance, who is much more eloquent, not to mention tactful. Also, that exposure will continue anyway, and the more we make of it the more important it becomes.
Also, I might mention that the audience has some distance(usually) from the TV exposure to the live performance, so we have some notice about what they may now know. And this allows us to adjust our methods, revise our programs or whatever, and gives them time to forget.
By way of presentation/personality, I had Slydini at my home in San Francisco once and had some local folks over. One of the fellows, after seeing Tony work was overheard commenting that the guys he new had to lap coins to do the things he'd just seen, but he was really watching and Tony was definitely not lapping he was somehow putting them THRU the table!
Best, PSC
"You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie
|
christopher carter
Special user
660 Posts
|
Posted: Nov 26, 2002 5:49pm
Quote:
|
On 2002-11-26 17:31, pchosse wrote:
Christopher,
I'm offended that you left me out of the "Inner Circle"!
|
|
In fact I put you smack in the middle of it. Unless I've got the wrong Chosse. I was thinking you're Paul Chosse who showed me all sorts of cool stuff at Ron Bauer's house about twelve years ago.
If I have the wrong guy, I apologize. I've enjoyed the conversation, regardless of which Chosse you might be.
--chris
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » TV specials and ethical dilemma |
|
|
| Go to page 1 ~ 2 (Next) |
|
![[8]](/forums/images/digits/8.gif)
![[1]](/forums/images/digits/1.gif)
![[6]](/forums/images/digits/6.gif)
![[4]](/forums/images/digits/4.gif)
![[3]](/forums/images/digits/3.gif)
![[9]](/forums/images/digits/9.gif)
![[2]](/forums/images/digits/2.gif)