The masked magician

[Ashles]

I'm sure this has probably already been dicussed to death (but I'm relatively new to these forums).

So my questions are:

1) Did anyone else (like me) think 'Who the hell IS this guy' after he revealed himself. I'd never heard of him.

2) Did he ever work again? I know he claimed he had loads of new illusions that he hadn't revealed the answers to, but aren't most tricks based on the same principles?

3) Did anyone else feel a small sense of releaee due to him? I had been wondering for ages about some of those tricks and I was so happy to have found out how they were done. I would have hated to be around 30 years ago, knowing these were tricks, but not knowing exactly HOW they were done.

I send my belated thanks to him for renewing my interest in magic.

 

[epepke]

I'm sure this has probably already been dicussed to death (but I'm relatively new to these forums).

So my questions are:

1) Did anyone else (like me) think 'Who the hell IS this guy' after he revealed himself. I'd never heard of him.

I had and still have no idea who he was.

Actually, in my tenure here, which isn't as along as many people but longer than yours, I haven't seen this brought up. I'm glad that you did, though, because the magician's secrecy stuff kind of rankles on me.

It's usually justified on two grounds: 1) that people like to be fooled, and less less often admitted 2) as a form of economic protectionism.

1 has some value. A classical stage magic show normally relies on people having been fooled. Then they can go off and have fun by trying to figure out the illusions. However, this Masked Magician guy managed to put together a show that was more entertaining over a longer period of time than most of the big names can manage. I agree with MM that a lot of stage magic has become stale for years.

2, well. It was a reasonable thing to do back when an interested kid could buy a pretty good illusion for a nickel. The new magic shops, where they make kids shell out $25 for a piece of aluminum pipe and a badly photocopied set of instructions offend me. I don't see any honor in propping up that business model.

I know he claimed he had loads of new illusions that he hadn't revealed the answers to, but aren't most tricks based on the same principles?

In the same sense and only in the same sense that there are only five or 14 or however you count plots for drama. The magic is in the execution and the creativity applied to it. I've seen enough big phony buzzsaws and showgirls walking into boxes to last me a lifetime. Penn & Teller put on a good show, and they only pretend to reveal secrets; they reveal some of them but usually as a setup for another illusion. That's one way to approach it. There should be other ways of approaching it as well.

There's a technique involved in making games that I call problem encoding. It may be called something else, but I have an annoying tendency for independent discovery. I'd recommend it to magicians. Here's an example. Two players start out with the digits 1-9. Each player, in turn, draws one of the digits. The winner is the first person who can make 15 by summing up three of his and/or her digits.

This is isomorphic to tic-tac-toe on a magic square. Tic-tac-toe is a trivial game, easy to master. However, the numbers game, despite being mathematically identical, is interesting and a lot harder to play.

I had been wondering for ages about some of those tricks and I was so happy to have found out how they were done.

I didn't get this kind of release. Most of the stereotypical illusions are pretty well known. But I can see how it would happen.

 

[Brown]

Well, Penn and Teller said (yes, BOTH of them said) that they didn't get too upset by the Masked Magician giving away magic secrets.

One wonders how they'd feel if someone publicized the secrets behind their "bullet catch" routine.

Lance Burton was probably a bit more upset by the masked Magician, because some of the secrets were for illusions that he used in his television specials. (Lance mildly zings the Masked Magician in his act.)

Many of the tricks that were exposed were pretty lame to begin with. Some of them were pretty close to "public domain" anyway, and no self-respecting professional would stoop to perform them. Some of the tricks, however, were the kind of tricks that budding magicians might acquire (at considerable cost) to build up their acts, and the Masked Magician basically trashed these budding performers' investments.

Also, some of the revealed secrets were ... wrong, in a way. Sure, you COULD do the trick as was shown on television, but a lot of performers achieved similar illusions by distinctly different techniques. Some performers actually had some fun with the audience by redesigning their illusions to especially astonish the members of the audience who thought they knew how the trick was accomplished.

 

[rebecca]

Re: Re: The masked magician

2, well. It was a reasonable thing to do back when an interested kid could buy a pretty good illusion for a nickel. The new magic shops, where they make kids shell out $25 for a piece of aluminum pipe and a badly photocopied set of instructions offend me. I don't see any honor in propping up that business model.

Honor? What?! First of all, these days stores can offer a much wider selection of easy, cool tricks for kids than in the "good old days." Prices and quality range, just as they always have, though these days quality is in general much, much better.

Magic has also become more accessible. FAO used to carry a large selection of Marvin's Magic, which is one of the greatest lines of products you could get for a kid. The tricks are great, some of them new, some classics, all with clear, easy to understand instructions. They don't cost a nickel, but nothing does anymore. A kid can still choose between a stuffed animal and a sven deck.

I don't know what kind of magic shops you frequent, but if they are that offensive, I recommend not giving them your business any longer.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: The masked magician

I don't know what kind of magic shops you frequent, but if they are that offensive, I recommend not giving them your business any longer.

I never have. But I used to see them all over the place in shopping malls. I haven't seen one in a few years, so maybe they've all gone under. Which is not such a bad thing.

 

[epepke]

Well, Penn and Teller said (yes, BOTH of them said) that they didn't get too upset by the Masked Magician giving away magic secrets.

One wonders how they'd feel if someone publicized the secrets behind their "bullet catch" routine.

I'd guess that he'd shout and gesticulate a lot. But then again, he does that anyway.

Many of the tricks that were exposed were pretty lame to begin with. Some of them were pretty close to "public domain" anyway, and no self-respecting professional would stoop to perform them.

Then David Copperfield is either not self-respecting or not professional. I have little problem with that assessment. But in terms of money, I think that lame-butt making the Statue of Liberty disappear trick made more moolah than just about any illusion in history, nicht wahr?

Some of the tricks, however, were the kind of tricks that budding magicians might acquire (at considerable cost) to build up their acts, and the Masked Magician basically trashed these budding performers' investments.

That's more than a little bit paranoid. "Boo hoo! I lose all my investment because 1% of America saw a show on cable and 1% remember more than one illusion from it!" I'm sure that the Arthur Murray dance studios also represent an evil threat to musical comedy and ballet.

Also, some of the revealed secrets were ... wrong, in a way. Sure, you COULD do the trick as was shown on television, but a lot of performers achieved similar illusions by distinctly different techniques. Some performers actually had some fun with the audience by redesigning their illusions to especially astonish the members of the audience who thought they knew how the trick was accomplished.

Which was, like, you know, kinda the POINT!

 

[MoeFaux]

I've heard both P&T talk about him (his name is somewhere in the back of my mind...Fernando? Francisco? I forget).

Both said they didn't care, that it was GREAT for magicians in that it piqued peoples interest in magic and that meant ticket sales.
And yeah, everyone knows those tricks and no one is using them in the way MM revealed them.

I know how a lot of magic tricks are done, and that doesn't diminish my interest in them at all. In fact, I've found that I enjoy a trick much more, and appreciate the work that's behind it once I know how it is done, both for close-up and stage magic.

I got no gripes against MM. I just think he's a bit pretentious. HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING SO GREAT TO WARRANT SUCH FLASHY STAGE MOVES! Dork.

 

[shanek]

I've heard both P&T talk about him (his name is somewhere in the back of my mind...Fernando? Francisco? I forget).

Valentino.

 

[epepke]

I got no gripes against MM. I just think he's a bit pretentious. HE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING SO GREAT TO WARRANT SUCH FLASHY STAGE MOVES! Dork.

You must really hate MAD magazine, then.

 

[Lavie Enrose]

I'm sure this has probably already been dicussed to death (but I'm relatively new to these forums).

So my questions are:

1) Did anyone else (like me) think 'Who the hell IS this guy' after he revealed himself. I'd never heard of him.

Yes, although some in the business knew exactly who he was as soon as they saw the first show. He was just a untalented magician.

2) Did he ever work again? I know he claimed he had loads of new illusions that he hadn't revealed the answers to, but aren't most tricks based on the same principles?

He probably did not get much work as a magician before he became the Masked Magician. He had his fifteen minutes of fame, and is now back to being someone the public does not care about. Maybe he is back doing his boring dove act in nightclubs.

3) Did anyone else feel a small sense of releaee due to him? I had been wondering for ages about some of those tricks and I was so happy to have found out how they were done. I would have hated to be around 30 years ago, knowing these were tricks, but not knowing exactly HOW they were done.

His audience was comprised of mostly the disinterested, which explains why he was just a flash in the pan on TV. FOX has moved on. People want the know the "truth" about the moon landings, not magic tricks.

At least one of the tricks the Masked Magician "exposed" can be found in Mark Wilson's Complete Course In Magic - first published in 1975 which is available at most public libraries! And how much money did FOX pay this Masked Magician?

 

[Lavie Enrose]

Five Secrets
Eugene Burger
Originally published in Genii Magazine, October, 1999

I am visiting my friend Max Maven in Hollywood, and I told him that I was planning to write a column about secrets. He immediately (in that terrifyingly bright way of his) directed me to the following quote from the British social critic Malcolm Muggeridge: "Secrecy is as essential to Intelligence as vestments and incense to a Mass, or darkness to a Spiritualist seance, and must at all costs be maintained, quite irrespective of whether or not it serves any purpose."

Last year, I was not surprised when many magicians went slightly crazy (some even ballistic!) over those television shows that gave away some of our secrets of magic to an audience that was primarily composed of the completely disinterested.

Now that the uproar has quieted down somewhat, let's talk about secrets.

Here's a good secret: Most people really DON'T want to know how it's done, unless they're pushed into that mindset by a magician who frames his or her work in a confrontational way. When those specials aired, many laypeople told me that they had started to watch, and soon changed the channel. They realized that knowing too much can take the fun out of many activities--and magic is clearly one of them.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Some performers actually had some fun with the audience by redesigning their illusions to especially astonish the members of the audience who thought they knew how the trick was accomplished.

I thought that revealing the method was to force other magicians to do exactly that?

 

[epepke]

I thought that revealing the method was to force other magicians to do exactly that?

Yes. You are right.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Yes. You are right.

Always, Epepke, always.
See? Magic!

 

[daneurysm]

I just watched the masked magician for the first time, though a lot of the tricks I already knew. I kinda liken it to pro-wrestling. Is there anyone alive (over age 12) who doesn't know pro-wrestling is fake? How's WWE doing these days? Huge. Bigger than it's ever been. Wrestling fans know exactly how it's done, but they don't care. It's still impressive to see for them. I'm not a fan of wrestling, but I am a fan of Penn & Teller, yet I know how they pull off their tricks, but it's still impressive to watch Teller's slight of hand & palming. He's so quick and never misses a beat that even though I'm looking for it, very often I get fooled anyway because he's that good.

 

[DRturner]

Although I don't condone revealing secrets, I think it was justifiable in the fact that any magician that used the effects revealed, now needs to find new material for their act, hence preventing the industry coming to a standstill. If this had happened a long time ago, maybe we would be looking at new effects and principles today. There is one thing I'm sure we can all agree on, that we are sick of seeing the same old worn out box stunts and old principles wrapped up in new paper and presented as if they are new.

 

[marplots]

Although I don't condone revealing secrets, I think it was justifiable in the fact that any magician that used the effects revealed, now needs to find new material for their act, hence preventing the industry coming to a standstill. If this had happened a long time ago, maybe we would be looking at new effects and principles today. There is one thing I'm sure we can all agree on, that we are sick of seeing the same old worn out box stunts and old principles wrapped up in new paper and presented as if they are new.

This would be better if an act or routine wasn't build of so many other elements than just "the trick." On stage, this is obvious -- there is choreography, music, lighting and so on. In smaller venues, it can be as difficult (if not as expensive) because a trick will fit into a weave of other effects, patter and so on. Most professionals think long and hard before they alter a routine that works for them -- the part they "own", the part that is unique, is the performance that surrounds any particular trick.

That said, the uniqueness also makes it less likely that exposure will harm anything. The same principle can be used in many different ways and it is likely a lay audience will not even recognize the trick they know. There's a huge difference between using a thumb tip to vanish a cigarette and Randi using it for psychic surgery.

 

[DRturner]

A fully appreciated post, I can agree that principles can be used as a seed, to make any effect unique and different, in the way it appears to the lay audience. But the pleasure we receive as performers is a different matter. As a logical thinker it kills me inside when watching an effect and not being able to enjoy that moment of absolute awe, as I transparently see through the effect I am watching. That said I appreciate the way each performer's approach differs and sometimes I smile to myself thinking what a genius way to portray this piece of chi nary. It is just my belief that the industry is evolving at a snails pace, but hey how am I qualified to make that decision...

 

[marplots]

...much snipped...

It is just my belief that the industry is evolving at a snails pace, but hey how am I qualified to make that decision...

I don't know, really, about the industry, but from an amateur's perspective, I can tell you my email inbox gets hammered weekly by new effects, DVDs, promotions -- on and on. There seems to be an infinite pool to draw from. Actually, it reminds me of music and how they never seem to run out of new songs to write.

What I do see changing is more visuals -- both demo clips, and DVDs for sale -- and less in the way of books. I think this is partly profit driven. It seems you can invent an effect and market it as a solo thing on a DVD instead of as part of a compilation in a book. This isn't all bad as it helps immensely to see what something is supposed to look like in a performance as opposed to figuring out some line drawings and a text description.

The rise of DVDs and instant downloads has also opened up sales to very young, new magicians who don't yet have the solid reputations it takes to sell books. The downside seems to be that many magicians (and I have done this) simply watch a demo reel and figure out how the trick is done without ever making a purchase. And, of course, the existence of torrents...

I've got a small trick now I want to barter with and the only holdup is not having it on video. I needs me some new-tech.

 

[Garrette]

This would be better if an act or routine wasn't build of so many other elements than just "the trick." On stage, this is obvious -- there is choreography, music, lighting and so on. In smaller venues, it can be as difficult (if not as expensive) because a trick will fit into a weave of other effects, patter and so on. Most professionals think long and hard before they alter a routine that works for them -- the part they "own", the part that is unique, is the performance that surrounds any particular trick.

That said, the uniqueness also makes it less likely that exposure will harm anything. The same principle can be used in many different ways and it is likely a lay audience will not even recognize the trick they know. There's a huge difference between using a thumb tip to vanish a cigarette and Randi using it for psychic surgery.

This.

I don't know, really, about the industry, but from an amateur's perspective, I can tell you my email inbox gets hammered weekly by new effects, DVDs, promotions -- on and on. There seems to be an infinite pool to draw from. Actually, it reminds me of music and how they never seem to run out of new songs to write.

What I do see changing is more visuals -- both demo clips, and DVDs for sale -- and less in the way of books. I think this is partly profit driven. It seems you can invent an effect and market it as a solo thing on a DVD instead of as part of a compilation in a book. This isn't all bad as it helps immensely to see what something is supposed to look like in a performance as opposed to figuring out some line drawings and a text description.

The rise of DVDs and instant downloads has also opened up sales to very young, new magicians who don't yet have the solid reputations it takes to sell books. The downside seems to be that many magicians (and I have done this) simply watch a demo reel and figure out how the trick is done without ever making a purchase. And, of course, the existence of torrents...

I've got a small trick now I want to barter with and the only holdup is not having it on video. I needs me some new-tech.

And mostly this.

Every day I have an internal debate on whether to unsubscribe from various magic shops and individual magician's newsletters and the like; there are far too many with far too much empty content.

My feeling regarding the internet and the new ease with which something can be published/shared is mixed, though I strongly feel that it is overall a very good thing; regardless if it were not a good thing, it is a factual thing and so railing against it will accomplish little.

My biggest dislike of the internet and easy self-publishing isn't that it exposes things (it inevitably does) but that it allows a mistaken but reinforcing impression that the magic is the trick. The point of your first post I quoted here gets lost in the idea that the trick is the trick. As you say, it is not the method but the presentation that differentiates great effects, and this is buried in the avalanche of gimmicks and tricks available on the internet.

Like you, I am simply an amateur, and I have never remotely created a new method for anything (though I have independently come up with a couple of mentalism methods which I then read about in books by some of the greats). My best, and possibly most marketable, routine was simply a children's version of the zombie. I did not think much of it when I came up with it when entertaining my (then young) children, but in discussing it with various magicians in person and on the internet I found that I am apparently the only one who does it the way I do. I remain flabbergasted.

I shared my routine with Chicken Pot Pie via pm per her thread in this sub-forum.

The points being that (a) we can do little or nothing about exposure in the big picture, but this has always been the case, and (b) with some exceptions, exposure really doesn't affect professionals.

I suppose if I were king of the magic world I would decree that no newbies could learn a trick or see a gimmick until they learned to act and to speak and to think about the effect on an audience; later, they would be exposed to specific sleights and gimmicks and such.

Then they would have a curse placed upon them which would result in their immediate immolation should they ever discuss methods with someone outside the Evil Circle of Power.