I came to realize. The real trick is the skill involved in making that gimmick undetectable.
Yes. When I said that
Hamilton is flim-flam, I meant that there is a tremendous amount of planning, skill, and rehearsal involved in making a show like that happen with minimal distraction to the logistics. We routinely employ the same techniques as stage magicians, only in the case of stage theater the goal is a seamless presentation. We want the "how' to be undetectable because that's not where we want to direct the audience's attention. It's all flim-flam, and we hope it doesn't suddenly take center stage. The traditional ninja costume -- all black with just a crack to see through -- is actually the stagehands' costume from Japanese theatre. Black-clad stagehands stood behind the brightly-dressed actors playing the actual ninjas and helped them appear to have superhuman ability.
By the way, I just realized that one of the actors in the show from which my avatar is taken is now in
Hamilton on Broadway. I should pick on a different show.
We have another thread running that talks about spiritualist churches. Putting mentalism in an entertainment context applies the flim-flam in one way. Putting it in a religious context applies it in a different way. When it's used in these ways, I can see why skeptics would balk at it.
"Oh!! That glass is actually a partially reflective surface. Cool."
Still one of the best low-tech ways to do the ghost of Banquo. Also, have you been to any of the Disney parks and visited whatever variant of the Haunted Mansion is there? This effect goes back to Victorian times. We know mentalists in the past have used basic stagecraft back when seances were more popular forms of pretending to contact the dead.
Agreed. There was a study I read years back (can't find now and busy) that said that in some circumstances smarter people were easier to fool as they thought they were too smart to be fooled.
I would believe this wholeheartedly. And mentalists and magicians have consistently fooled scientists in what were ostensibly intended as properly controlled tests of purported ability. Scientists have some understanding of what protocols are needed to prevent intentional tampering with the results. But I suspect very few scientists are able to foresee the various ways in which highly skilled, highly practiced artists have created their effects.
I routinely fooled my father, who came to see all my theatrical productions. He had a PhD and was trained in both architectural and psychology. I'd ask him, "So how do you think we did that effect?" His explanations were invariably overthought. The truth was always dirt simple. I gather from his answers that he believed the simple methods wouldn't have been effective because he didn't notice the telltales.
My comment was mainly at the Penns of the world coming up with this as a post hoc rationalisation for their professional secrecy.
Ah, I hadn't apprehended that from your post. I think you're right. "I could tell you, but you wouldn't be impressed" would seem to fall in line with the style of magic Penn & Teller do.
