Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Magician Marco Tempest Talks 'Open Sorcery'

Posted by timothy on from the despite-the-cheesy-music dept.

bLanark writes "The BBC have a piece about illusionist Marco Tempest who uses technology to generate magical illusions. As he says in the interview unlike most magicians and illusionists he shares his techniques in an act that he calls 'open sorcery.' The techniques include using iPhone apps, and high-speed digital cameras. There is a growing band of people using and contributing to the field."

61 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you seen his tricks? They're actually quite impressive, he's bringing some new ideas to spice up the dusty old "pull-white-rabbits-out-of-a-hat" magician community.

  2. And so... by Terrasque · · Score: 5, Funny

    And so it begins, the legends of the Technomages..

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    1. Re:And so... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Only 1/2 hour. Not bad.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  3. I have wondered... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given even a little of the technology becoming available now, it'd be very easy to 'cheat' at magic. For example, an e-paper playing card. The processor might make it a little thick to handle, but it'd look just like a normal card... except it changes face at the command of the magician or his assistant. Suddenly, every card trick is a joke.

    Would this suck the fun out? While magicians may still take pride in their skill, it'd be much harder to impress an audience who realise that those tricks could be done with ease and gadgetry. I imagine television magicians have been through similar issues too: How can you convince the audience that what they see isn't all achieved with camera trickery, short of revealing your method after the trick?

    1. Re:I have wondered... by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Not every card trick would be a joke. Try doing this guy's card trick with e-paper playing cards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmraxBgEZog

      I know he's taking the cards from his suit (and I think there are a few mistakes), but it's still impressive.

      Many magicians have been using cutting technology for their tricks. They do it well so audiences don't realize it. Powerful magnets, projectors, cameras (to peek at stuff) etc.

      --
    2. Re:I have wondered... by s.t.a.l.k.e.r._loner · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. Largely, though, most of the people in any given audience aren't the inquisitive type, they're just there to be mystified and entertained. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but the rest of us are in the minority of people who are always looking to figure out how everything works.

    3. Re:I have wondered... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      When it comes to magic, there's no such thing as a "cheat". Magic is nothing but cheats. That's part of the draw of it, the "how in the hell did he do THAT?" feeling, which is why magic is always better live than on camera.

      Which is why technique is supposed to be and should remain secret. It's no fun if you're in teh audience and know how the magician did his trick.

      When I was a younger teen I was into magic, probably started around age 9 or so until I was maybe fifteen. I read every book I could find on the subject, including half a dozen biographies of Houdini and had quite a few tricks of my own. This guy will be ostracised by the magic community.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:I have wondered... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      I'm not really sure he'll get ostracized...at least, not by everyone. Like you, I've read umpteen books on magic. I'm still "active" (so to speak) in the bizarre magic community. Magic has frequently relied on some form of technology throughout it's history, even if electronics didn't exist yet. It used tricks of gravity, hydraulics, chemistry, and probably a few I can't think of at the moment. Any new tech is almost immediately utilized, the newer the better so that the audience is not yet aware of it, or unlikely to make the connection.
      Someone up above mentioned that you can't fool a camera; yet it seems you can. If "classic" magic is vulnerable to the camera, it seems the answer -for commercial magicians anyway- is to change the nature of magic to leverage the camera to it's advantage. It's not my thing, but it'll happen.

      Personally, I could never stand the big illusions and illusionists. Some dancing guy on a huge stage (presumably with trap doors) and hidden assistants hiding behind curtains, all manner of custom made bright colored boxes which bear no resemblance to anything one sees in everyday life ("oh, that's not rigged or anything....").. it bores me to tears. So, the tech angle is not a huge paradigm shift, for me, it's just more of the same, but a different medium.
      But a guy who can take, say, my pencil, a coin, and a rubber band, and do something with them that should be physically impossible, right in front of my face... that I find entertaining and mysterious, if he does it well. (I'm over the card tricks though).

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    5. Re:I have wondered... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I strongly disagree that it's no fun if you know how the trick was done. It's no fun if the trick was easy. Magic is a display of skill, the "how was that done?" factor can arise purely from a "how can anyone be that good?" feeling. For example, the people who can palm CDs and other large objects. The tricks are obviously the same as the classic palming tricks, there's rarely anything truly new, but the difficulty alone is impressive.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    6. Re:I have wondered... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Figuring out how a magic trick works is what people do afterwards. The point is that at the time you are unable to see how the trick is done.

      An analogy is with the "locked room" type of murder mystery. When you're reading, it is the increased nightmarishness in atmosphere provided by the apparent impossibility of the crime that is important. You know logically that at the end you will be given a mundane explanation, but during the course of the book you gain an extra shiver of horrified delight.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:I have wondered... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I disagree about Derren Brown. His whole point is that he is messing with your mind, and it is difficult to separate what is trickery and what is psychological or physical technique.

      For example, in one of his books he explains the whole memory palace idea, which can be used to achieve what look like impossible feats of memory. But that doesn't mean that he won't do a trick that looks similar but would actually be impossible (e.g. remembering incredibly complicated in a ridiculously short space of time).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Neat ideas but... by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Watched a youtube video of him doing a street magician style trick involving an umbrella. Was pretty obvious that it was a setup given that the woman just happened to have a plain bright red umbrella on what looked to be a warm sunny day. When a magician resorts to using tricks like I just can't enjoy the illusion. If you're going to use actors, off-camera interviews/questionnaires (so you can get info needed for 'psychic' tricks), you may as well go the whole hog and fake every aspect (you could even put in some CGI explosions) .

    I would rather see a simple trick done very well than a complex, impressive seeming trick where an unknown amount is has been completely faked (well, technically as it's an illusion it's all fake but I'm sure you know what I mean). One of my favourite tricks is a simple slight of hand: Paul Daniel's Chop Cup.

    1. Re:Neat ideas but... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Tricks with plants make me cringe. Check out Dynamo 'walking through glass' at some party with Rio Ferdinand. Quite simply everyone within 6' of the glass has been prep'd, including the "presenter" whose reaction is just hammed up beyond any believability. You can even seen the doorman watch the trick for a little while, then step back so he covers the exit of the "magician" through the door.

      I did like his Polo mint trick the first time I saw it, though; Simple, yet effective.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Neat ideas but... by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      Watching the people outside was cringe-worthy. All except about three of them were told to remain absolutely still for the trick (so their head movement wouldn't give it away) and three of them were allowed to acteout a 'shocked' reaction. A lot of work to try and disguise what isn't really that great of a trick.

    3. Re:Neat ideas but... by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      you may as well go the whole hog and fake every aspect (you could even put in some CGI explosions) .

      Micheal Bay magic!

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    4. Re:Neat ideas but... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Watch again. The top of the door frame does not show the door moving. There would have to be no glass there, or a hole in the door. A moving door would show some reflection. If they are going to bother bringing in actors, then they might as well do some video editing.

      I think that the real trick is that there is video editing. Watch the guys holding the coat up. They don't move their faces even when the magician stands up. The Star Wars prequels had this problem. There was so much CGI, that some the actors might not have reacted realistically to some events.

      --
      testing out my trending skills
  5. Re:Open? by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

    If you are using an IPhone... stop your bitching and preaching about "open".

    why not? An open source windows application is still an open source application

  6. Re:Apple. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Have you seen his tricks? They're actually quite impressive, he's bringing some new ideas to spice up the dusty old "pull-white-rabbits-out-of-a-hat" magician community.

    Though there still are some dusty old "pull-white-rabbits-out-of-a-hat" magicians around I think this is an unfair comparison. The modern "conventional" magicians like David Blaine, Derren Brown, and eve Penn and Teller have moved on quite a bit since then.

  7. Saw him on TED by YurB · · Score: 3, Informative

    He has two videos on TED, here's his TED profile.

  8. Obligatory by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

    As he says in the interview unlike most magicians and illusionists he shares his techniques in an act that he calls 'open sorcery.'

    In related news, a magician working for Microsoft has issued a press statement claiming that this dangerous new trend could well destroy the magic industry.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  9. Already happens by abigsmurf · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a magic fan, it's incredibly annoying seeing so many street magicians using camera tricks. The whole point of street magicians is that you're not in a studio, you've limited avenues for preparation and you don't have control over your environment.

    I blame people like David Blaine for popularising camera tricks, his 'hovering' trick is the worst. The actual trick is to position your feet in a way where the heel of the other foot blocks people's view of you standing on tiptoes on the other foot, giving the impression you're hovering a few inches off the ground. Neat trick but not impressive and it's very obvious what's happening when it's on camera. Knowing this, David then some point afterwards let himself lifted by a crane, got some actors to wear the same clothes as the people who were in the earlier trick and shot himself being lifted over their shoulders (wire was then CG'ed out). He spliced that footage with the people's reaction from the real trick and it gave the impression he genuinely performed an illusion where he hovered several metres off the ground in front of some random people.

    Rule of thumb: if a street magician has any cuts in footage, something is up; there's only a single camera and he only gets one stab at a trick with a set of people, he shouldn't need to ever cut. Also, most "how did he know my birthday and get it in that passing bus?" trick almost always involved them having an interview when the camera isn't rolling or them having filled out a questionnaire beforehand.

    1. Re:Already happens by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Masked Magician did one trick just to show this rule flawed: He made a tank disappear. Tank was there, he lowered a screen over it, waved hands, tank gone. It was a camera trick: Camera, screen and magician were all mounted on a moveable platform. While the screen was down the whole lot shifted position to point away from the tank.

    2. Re:Already happens by abigsmurf · · Score: 2

      That one gets a bit fuzzy because it's the method David Copperfield used to make the statue of liberty disappear but he also did it with a real audience on location.

    3. Re:Already happens by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This street one is cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwqJlv0bIjE
      It's likely the burger is coming from an assistant behind that "display", but it's done quite well.

      And I'm not sure how this regurgitator guy does all that stuff - part of his illusions are achievable using the usual tricks (duplicate lock and keys), but the other stuff he does...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ethCJ4bfJkg

      This one is not as amazing but still good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmraxBgEZog
      I hate to be the one practising it every day though - imagine setting up all those cards over and over again.

      --
    4. Re:Already happens by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The voiceover on the MM show mentioned this: He said that any time it appears to be done with a live audience, the audience is in on it.

      A TV magician doesn't really need an audience though. If you just intercut the trick with *any* audience shots, even from another trick or another show entirely, I doubt the viewers at home would realise.

    5. Re:Already happens by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      While the Balducci can be used on camera, it does not need one to be effective. One of the key things a "magician" must be aware of at all times is the angle of performance. There's almost always one (or more) angles where a misdirect, shuffle, palm, whatever can be viewed from and thus one must maintain control over those angles to prevent being caught out.

      Of course, some would say "but that's cheating and it's not really magic!" and I'd say "HA! YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC YOU FUCKING MORON!". It's entertainment. If we can believe that the latest pop-diva actually writes her own songs, that Hollywood doesn't churn out formula movies, or Iraqi WMD to justify a war, a guy pretending to have the power to levitate for OUR AMUSEMENT isn't a big deal at all.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    6. Re:Already happens by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp_wJlGDD98 is a good one, it's card manipulation with CDs. And he uses a screen for some of the tricks, so it fits the tech aspect nicely.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    7. Re:Already happens by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      "Magic" is impressive because it shows the skill of the performer. It's like gymnastics with jokes. A well done trick will be impressive even if you know how it is done.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  10. Re:Apple. by TheLink · · Score: 2

    If that BBC video is a good example of his tricks, I'm not impressed at all. _obvious_ projections, videos on iphones. I've seen better projector tricks (3D projection mappings) that didn't even call themselves magic. Even Penn and Teller's "magic reveals" are more interesting (I think there was at least one where they reveal the trick but then later do something which makes you go "wait, how the heck did they do that?" since the trick they revealed can't apply to that scenario).

    BTW something simple like pulling out cards from "nowhere" can be impressive when taken to the extreme:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmraxBgEZog

    --
  11. Re:Open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we're going by that logic, literally no software is free. You have to buy a computer, after all!

  12. Re:Open? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah the beer isn't free if you have to provide your own container to carry it home (and transportation too).

  13. Have the Magicians' Alliance been informed? by tosh1979 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought they'd be all over it!

    1. Re:Have the Magicians' Alliance been informed? by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 2

      Have the Magicians' Alliance been informed?

      I doubt they'll really care. While some people are impressed by his presentations, I wouldn't call it magic. You know exactly how it is done.

      wikipedia: Magic is a performing art that entertains audiences by staging tricks or creating illusions of seemingly impossible or supernatural feats using natural means. A performance, yes. Magic, no. There are no secrets here.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
  14. Re:Apple. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    The 'outright lying' has been a part of magic since the very beginning. The tricky part is getting the audience to believe the lie.

  15. Re:Apple. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

    Have you seen his tricks? They're actually quite impressive, he's bringing some new ideas to spice up the dusty old "pull-white-rabbits-out-of-a-hat" magician community.

    Can he make software patents disappear? No? How about patent trolls? <sigh>

  16. Re:Open? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

    why not? An open source windows application is still an open source application

    Yes, but it is not Free as free in beer sense because it depends on proprietary non-free software.

    Do you think Linux include the microcode of the CPUs it's been compiled for? Ask Intel and AMD. No software stack is entirely free. Get over it.

    --
    Write boring code, not shiny code!
  17. Re:Apple. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1, Funny

    All glory to the Hypnotoad...

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  18. Re:Apple. by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    While I haven't seen him personally I will give a big bravo to the whole "open magic" movement we have been seeing as of late. look we ALL know its a trick, alright? this ain't the 1600s. Does knowing its a trick ruin it? FUCK NO because it the ARTIST and how they sell it that makes it kick ass. I mean we all knew Heath Ledger wasn't crazy but it was the way he sold the character that has people debating to this day how much was madness and how much was a Zanatos Gambit.

    So I'm all for getting rid of the "ohhhh..it's MAGIC!" bullshit like we saw for years so we can get rid of the kayfabe and just concentrate on these folks being damned good entertainers.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  19. Re:Apple. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    That's not the deal at all. The magician comes on stage, tells you he's going to saw the girl in half, but no-one believes the lie. He presents an effect that is seemingly impossible to achieve, but the audience knows it and gains their sense of wonder from not knowing how he did it. Derren Brown has to tell you the incredibly clever bordering-on-the-psychic method he (didn't actually) use, because the kind of effects he presents aren't really that impressive, particularly on TV.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  20. Magic vs Open by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    If it's open, it's not really magical anymore...

  21. Technomage v0.1? by Crookdotter · · Score: 1

    I'm suprised no one has mentioned that.

  22. Shadows by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

    I'm unimpressed. To me, magic tricks are supposed to be 'hand-crafted', wherein the person learning the skill has it come from intelligence, predictions and natural sources. As someone else said, this is a form of performance art, not magic or illusion. It's probably cool to watch, but I wouldn't say it's sorcery. It's pressing buttons and standing there moving in time with prerecorded shit.

    For anyone arguing that this is better than 'rabbit in the hat' magicians, go watch this.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  23. Technomage by zerosomething · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technomage

    --
    It all starts at 0
  24. Corally to Clarke's Third Law by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

    Arthur C. Clarke's Third law states "Any Technology Sufficiently Advanced is Indistinguishable from Magic". The Corally to that law is "Any Magic Sufficiently Exposed is indistinguishable from Technology" and as Albert Einstein supposedly Said "Quantumn Physics is that Spooky Stuff" as he didn't like it. In reality, both Clarke and Einsteind are correct about Quantumn Physics and Events. It's magic under the hood and by another name.

    Once we harness magic, we'll be doing Warp Speed and dealing with Vulcan's before you know it so "hang onto your bustles girls, the wicked witch of the west is dead and her sister is madder then a wet cat on a hot tin roof"

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    1. Re:Corally to Clarke's Third Law by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Someone noticed my tagline!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re:Corally to Clarke's Third Law by plopez · · Score: 1

      Einstein, speaking of his son's career in channel hydrology, also said "I'll stick to theoretical physics, it's easier". What makes it hard is that sediment loads can create a non-Newtonian fluid, the modeling and understanding of which is a black art. So is channel hydrology magic?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    3. Re:Corally to Clarke's Third Law by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a material for a failed college ad: "Come to the department of channel hydrology and study the subject that scared off Einstein!"

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Corally to Clarke's Third Law by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What makes it hard is that sediment loads can create a non-Newtonian fluid, the modeling and understanding of which is a black art. So is channel hydrology magic?

      Just because something is currently impossible to model with complete accuracy doesn't mean it's magic. Weather forecasting is just as much a black art, at least when looking more than a couple of days ahead.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Corally to Clarke's Third Law by plopez · · Score: 1

      What you just posted, specifically "because something is currently impossible to model with complete accuracy" makes no sense. It will never be possible to model accurately.
      1) The foundation of complex non-linear systems implies accuracy is impossible
      2) Even if theoretically possible complete accuracy is impossible since the systems are modeled by numerical methods which have built in limitations to accuracy (error terms)
      3) What does accurate mean? How accurate are our measurement methods? Can we measure with infinite precision without changing what we are measuring (e.g. the instrumentation changing the turbulence patterns).

      Such are the challenges of modeling....

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re:Corally to Clarke's Third Law by plopez · · Score: 1

      I think it would attract a certain crowd.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  25. Re:Apple. by wed128 · · Score: 2

    Arnold Schwarzenegger is a futuristic android.

    Which he is. right? RIGHT?!?

  26. Re:Apple. by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    I'm especially fond of Penn & Teller because they put a good spin on it beyond "I'm wearing a glittery shirt and eyeliner, and that is mysterious."

    Like, for instance, their flag-burning routine. Not only do they do the trick, but they get a good point across, too. One of my favorite bits.

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  27. Re:Open? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    I dunno, aren't there lots of stuff being made nowadays that's open-source hardware? Sure maybe not something you can pick up in Best Buy, but I am pretty sure there are things like the Arduino with all the specs available. Unless you want to get pedantic about not having the blueprints for the chips in such a device that's about as open source as hardware can get.

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  28. Re:Apple. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 2

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Teller-Reveals-His-Secrets.html

    You guys might enjoy this article.

    Also check View All Comments - there is one from The Amazing Randi

    --
    -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  29. The Prestige by plopez · · Score: 1

    Sort of off topic but somehow linked, if you haven't seen it I recommending seeing this movie. It features magic, technology, and Nicolai Tesla. (So we also now have the obligatory Tesla reference as well). :)

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:The Prestige by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Sort of off topic but somehow linked, if you haven't seen it I recommending seeing this movie. It features magic, technology, and Nicolai Tesla. (So we also now have the obligatory Tesla reference as well). :)

      Is that the lesser known brother of Nikola Tesla?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:The Prestige by plopez · · Score: 1

      Yeah, typos happen.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  30. Re:Apple. by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    so we can get rid of the kayfabe .

    Shhh Dont mention those terms around here, you will be blammed for bringing down the quality of the SyFy channel.

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  31. Re:Apple. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    I think the whole kayfabe bullshit actually makes wrestlers lives WORSE as people just go 'oh its just fake" and then ignore the truly horrible abuse these guys take in the ring. Yeah sure its fake but in reality its like being a stuntman in that things can and DO go wrong. The hospital my mom worked at treated many a big name wrestler and the amount of "Jesus Christ look at him!" injuries these guys got was just nuts. Compound fractures, guys that had had their bells rung so many times their brains behaved like a 70 year olds when they were 28, just truly rough horrible injuries. my mom said even treating the boxers wasn't as bad as what she'd see on the wrestlers yet they are treated like 'Oh its just all fake' so those injuries don't count.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  32. Re:Apple. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I had to google both Zanatos Gambit and kayfabe and I still have no idea what you're talking about regarding Heath Ledger.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  33. I was always suspicious of this video by tanot · · Score: 1

    Brendan Patricks is billed as a close-up magician but I really can't see how this is done without some camera trickery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MRi7KNBALY (O2 advert)