Is doing an escape act magic? Is standing up on top of a pole for days magic? Is fire-eating magic? Is suspending yourself on hooks magic? Is juggling rings magic?

I didn't used to think about it until a friend recently asked me why magicians all like to lock or tie themselves up to attempt some do-or-die escape act. According to her, it was so boring. After all, it is almost 99.99% expected that they would be able to free themselves before their ropes got burnt off or the spikes came down on them. And most importantly, she asked me what was so "magical" about that?

I thought to myself, hmm... she did have a point.

I mean I'm not hoping someone would ever fail to escape and die a horrible bloody death, but an escape act in itself is really, IMHO, not magic (especially one that the magician DID manage to escape ON TIME). Ironically it is still a staple act of many magicians!!

I am sure some of you might talk about Houdini, who, despite his reputation as a great magician, was really an escape artist. Truth to be told, I have never seen his acts but I am sure he must have plenty of charisma and showmanship to pull off something so uninteresting. But how many of us can claim to be like him?

I think back to some of the famous guys who, in my memory, had attempted such acts, and I realized most of them almost never managed to "escape" on time.... It was only AFTER the building exploded or the giant saw cut them up that the MAGIC truly started. The "escape" was a just a reason to showcase their power of teleportation or the ability to stay alive with their upper and lower bodies seperated. Now, that IS magical...

But what I noticed these days is there are many magicians or illusionists( locally or abroad) who are presenting stunts that are NOT exactly magical. While I don't know how they decide on what to perform, I do expect to see magic when I am watching magicians in action and not magicians-turned-stuntmen.

Maybe it is time for our local talents to rethink what is a real magic act.

*Disclaimer: My post is not intended to criticize anybody in particular as I do understand that there are people here who does those acts I mentioned. It is not a personal attack.*

I think we may consider part of an escape act as magic if it contains disappearance followed by appearance in a different location.

For eg, in the recent television program which showed Lu Chien trying to escape from a box but the box exploded upon impact by a truck. He then appeared on top of the truck.

I think we can definitely classify that as magic but I can't say the same thing for pure escapes and fire eating. I don't think people classify juggling as magic also. Probably, people do these so as to add variety to their shows.

This is a common classification made by laymen:

-illusion: One person teleport from a place to another, escaping from boxes. Basically anything looks like a massive/majestic effect is considered illusion

-Magic: Any sleights of hands or things that seems trickery. Basically most closeup and sleights-looking based tricks.


People consider illusion is better than magic, when both cases are suppose to be illusion and magic at the same time.

This is not my opinion but based on many other peoples too.

In my opinion, I used to think likewise. However, it can be seen as magic as well. Considering the fact, that it's impossible to escape from a straight jacket, handcuffs, etc.

Adding on to what Magicdow has mentioned. It would be better if there's an obvious magical element to it, like human teleportation or a stunt go wrong but it's magically fixed. Layman would find that entertaining as well as magical.

I agree with mustleaxl, magicians nowadays are turning from entertainers to dare-devils, many people I have asked find it amazing that they are able to pull it off, but do not enjoy watching.

Although escape magic are not recorded into the effects of magic but nowaday escape magic has increase in popularity , a small groups of audiences still like to see magician putting their lifes into danger and see how they escape from it because of this mindset , more and more magician like to perform escape acts to fulfill the audiences wishes

To me , although escape magic has not been recorded as magic since olden days but it have brought happiness to all audiences watching it thus isnt magic about the enjoyment brought to audience , since it could fulfill the requirement I felt it could be considered as part of it

Anyway this is just my opinin and does not applied to all . :D

-XiaoFeng

To Kser: I don't really get what you were trying to say at all.

To alvinterence:
"Considering the fact, that it's impossible to escape from a straight jacket, handcuffs"

Well, by right, it SHOULD be. But psychologically, it just doesn't seems THAT impossible, given the circumstances it is performed.

Most of the time, we would automatically think, logically, either the locks are rigged, or a pin/ universal key was used, or the magician could dislocate his joints (not exactly unheard of), all easily explained by very mundane laws of psychics.

But magic SHOULD defy physics.

To Xiaofeng: If giving happiness to audience is all there is, then we no need a magician to do that. A singer... a comedian... a stripper (not the deck) could accomplish all that and more.

There must be something different in watching a magic performance vs all other kinds. If not, why bother to even watch magic?

I personally think that Stunt is stunt. Magic is Magic.

For a Stunt act, there is a chance of failure, though most of the audience will know that its nearly impossible, but the interesting and real part of stunt is the items used during it. Locks and chains that are checked by audience, locked in by audience etc. So the audience verify that it is now impossible for normal people to escape. So you perform the escape and you did it, the audience overwhelmed, because you shown a skill that not alot of people will have, Whether or not, it require gimmicks are secondary. because what the audience see is what you get, but try to be as real as you can and then the returns from the audience will be greater.

For a Magic act, audience see surprises and wonders, which in realism world, its impossible to happen. So since all of us are magicians, I don't think i need to explain about magic. In short, same as above, what the audience see is most important, they seen you disappear and reappear, its a cool magic.

So now comes the gray zone, Magic and stunt, well, in my opinion, a magic aspect stunt will always let the audience think that its magic and not stunt. A stunt aspect magic, will also make the audience think that its magic and not stunt. Because, if you are doing a escape and you magically disappear, then the restraint is no longer an issue to them, because if you can disappear, why will the restraint hold you? Likewise, you are doing a magic inorder to escape, then audience will still think that you use magic to escape, so in this 2 story, magic will always cover the stunt action.

So why incorporate restraint into an act where you disappear? To me, it is to increase the drama and aspect of the act, if you are put inside a box without locks and chains, people can just say you can simply open the door and walk out, so you use locks and chains, to perform a magical escape. So mega acts like lu chen or barry stuant escape is only demonstrating how they escape, magically or not. In the end, like I say, its the audience that see whether is it an escape, or is it a magic. As a performer, you do your best to hype up the act and make it really dangerous, and impossible, you try to project what you want them to think it is, an escape or a magic. Most performer will say its an escape because if he/she sell it as a magic, then then surprise element which is the magic disappear part will be exposed and you lose all your hype about it.

Whether or not they are wrong to say that its up to individual, I can say that your card disappear in the middle of the deck but its on top all along, I didn't say it because I wanted to sell the idea that the card is really in the middle of the deck. So here is the same, they are selling the idea that its an escape, then BOO, disappear and reappear elsewhere, then thats the magical surprise.

So back to some other issue, magic performance with stunt elements or vice versa. Well, again, its personal performance preferences. Some people like to do pure magic show, all magic, nothing else. Some others put into elements like stunts or juggling, to give different feel of the show, it tells people what else you are about to do. The important thing through out the show is that, you don't blur the impression of magic into the other elements and vice versa, if you are juggling, juggle well and don't make a dove appear out of no where, because then people won't remember that you can juggle, but remember that you are a magician and the props are part of a tool to make the dove appear. If you are performing a SJ escape, you don't twist your head 360 degrees, etc, no one will remember that you escape from the SJ.

Well, that doesn't mean you cannot do the above, what I telling you is that, if you want to do just a stunt, don't go doing other things to blur out the stunt. If you are incoporating magic into the stunt, then its a magic and no longer a stunt.

My 2 cents worth.

A singer can dance and sing and the same time can't they? But singing must be 80% of what they do, not dancing. So why can't magicians do magic and do stunt/ escape/ juggling too? As long as magic still plays 80% of what the magician do - there's the difference you want to see here as opposed to other entertainment acts/ show.

Of course, there are purist who purely sings and there's nothing else going on, but singing. So if you're a purist, then a magician should probably do nothing else but magic. However, in my opinion, in the market right now, an artiste who wants to commercially viable must be able to offer variation in what they do to capture their fans (if they have them) or at least the audience's appetite. Look at Andy Lau. In his concert, people comment on his dancing, and costumes and occasionally he does magic too. Why? As Magicdow says - variety. Is he still considered a singer? Yes.

An important to note, in my humble opinion too, is that most times, stunts are stunts and they were never billed as magic. They usually were used as a form of publicity for the main thing - magic. Look at David Blaine's endurance stunts - he never claimed it as magic. Remember, all he said was yoga and loads of meditation etc etc. However, he did get a lot of publicity and all of it went to? His magic series. Locally, Magic Babe did an all around 360 escape - and it was adequately termed as such: an escape, never magic. And publicity? To her magic show.

If in any circumstances in a magic show there were escapes etc, to my knowledge, the magician usually acknowledges that the performance is an escape (eg. tribute to houdini blah blah) and not 'magic' in magic sense. In such cases, the audience will be led to appreciate it as a skill set (presumable entertaining skill set) and not be waiting to be amazed. And when they do not make such clarification, there IS usually a magic element. Like the disappearances after failing to escape and reappearing elsewhere.

When you state 99.99% you expect the magicians to be able to escape, so where's the magical aspect? Well then, 99.99% you also expect the magicians to be able to find your card, isn't it? Where then is the magical aspect? The magical aspect is when you convince your audience that you HAVE lost the card, and now you belong in the 0.01% when you can't find it. Similarly then, the magical aspects in what i guess can be called 'magical escapes' is when you up the usual difficulty level and the audience is now convinced you cannot escape.

An example i'd give would be the underwater subtrunk. So the guy goes in with all chains and locks. Yep - an escape... + he needs to escape before he goes out of air. So we expect an escape with a challenging aspect. Where's the magic? Magic happens when the guy not only escapes, but appears outside the trunk and the girl is now inside all chained and locked up. So there's the magic. It is different than doing a straitjacket, for example, in a given time frame (eg. before the roller coaster comes and smashes the performer to smithereens). That is an escape with an element of challenge. It is a skill set, and as an audience you're supposed to wonder if the performer can really do it. Like you say, 99.99% of the time they can. But audience has also heard about the 0.01% when they can't. So... can they or can they not? That's the part that catches the audiences.

(A great example of performer who does escape with a challenge aspect is Jonathan Goodwin - if you've never seen what he does, do yourself a favour, check it out. You may or may not like it, but i'm sure you will be riveted by his performance.)

So does a magic show have to be 100% magic? I feel it is up to individual taste and preference. The audiences obviously can make their own choices.

PS.
Just an :off: : as i was typing about the 99.99% of the audience expecting something and hence it doesn't appear magical/ appeal to them. Audiences nowadays expect 99.99% of the time when we bring out a silk, it will poof become a cane. Is it still magic?

Pardon me for the awfully long passage - just my thoughts as i was reading the various posts.

Thanks guys for your input.

To luneymooney:

Firstly, I agree that entertainer could add variety but it shouldn't overshadow the main focus.

As much as Andy Lau could dance, it could not be for EVERY song. The focus for the audience is still about LISTENING to his SINGING... that is why he is a SINGER. Imagine how his audience would react if he only do dancing for the whole concert? Even if he has the moves like Aaron Kwok, I doubt he will be holding more concerts in the future...

There is really a difference between a dancer who sings and a singer who dances.

MagicDow did also mentioned that PURE escape are NOT considered magic. And that is what I was trying to point out. Not whether should there be a variety.

Secondly, you mentioned Blaine and Ning doing stunts (which you agree to that definition) to generate publicity for their magic show. Ok, I have no problems with that. In fact, for all I care, they could even jam the electric guitar or belt out a rock song like Mr Mindfreak to do that.

But again, I am really not saying that they CANNOT do that. I am just saying (again) that those are NOT magic.

Yes, their acts were billed as ESCAPE and they weren't misleading. But IMO, as magicians, I am sure they could had done a grand MAGIC effect instead which, I am sure, would generate even bigger interest for their show. The TELEPORTATion Across S'pore River that Ning and JC did was a good example.

And by the way, most people remembered Blaine for his Street Magic... not his death-defying stunts. That should tell us what the audience really like about him.


Thirdly, actually you did bring out a very good point when you mentioned the underwater subtrunk and finding the card.

I guess 99.99% of the escape acts seen locally are really... well, unconvincing, (at least the ones I have seen... and I have seen quite a few). Probably that's why 99.99% of the audience here don't really think too much about them.


Using an example:

1. You did an ACR very well. The audience are totally baffled. They cannot see any logical way on how the card could have travelled up. You rolled up your sleeves, they saw the face of the card when it was going in the middle, they didn't see any funny moves and the card was SIGNED!!! Oh my God..!!! How did you do that!!!?

2. You did a SJ escape really well. The audience are suitably impressed that you are able to pick locks and contort your body. The reasons may be incorrect, but certainly explicable.

THAT is the different degrees of amazement.

Perhaps, i did not put across what i wanted to say succinctly enough.

Agree escape does not equal magic.

Don't agree: magicians should not do escapes. (My reason: I feel it adds variety, so long as escapes do not overwhelm in the show. Besides variety, it adds a multi-dimension to the magician. Again, i know, a purist will definitely disagree here - which is so then, we have to agree to disagree)

If the act is unconvincing, then probably you should be talking about the performer's skill/ presentation rather than labeling it as escape vs magic or stunt vs magic because i feel that is not a fair comparison. Apple is an apple, orange is an orange. The level of amazement cannot be compared here, just like how one cannot compare eating an apple to an orange even though both are fruits.

I think I should try to be clearer on my last 2 paragraphs too.

Well, the "unconvincing" part IMO, is not in the skill or presentation but rather the conditions of the escape.

Most of them I have seen had at least done a decent job in "escaping", ie getting out of their handcuffs or boxes or SJ. But the conditions they were subjected to just "seemed" too easy, unlike the underwater trunk you mentioned.

I mean, who would really get all that wet and excited seeing someone break out of a jacket or a locked box??? And whoever has seen a magician/escapist unable to escape from that kind of conditions (maybe there is but... that is a bit embrassing if it ever happens).

Ok, my last 2 examples were used assuming both perfomers were competent. I only used it to highlight the differences between the reactions of audience upon seeing both performances.

If they were both stand-alone acts, I should think it's fine. But if the escape act was put in the middle of a magic show, then it might dilute the whole thing.

While you mentioned we cannot compare apples with oranges, well, the truth is I am. I see it as somebody putting a orange in a basket of apples. There is variety, but it does not fit in.

I once came upon a magician whom started off his act by going into a box which later were being lit up by fire . Manage to escape and later appear at another spot and start peforming a series of stage magic.
Well to my opinion , I felt that it was kind of wierd and unable to adjust to it but to the viewers whom watches it , they have postive comment that were saying that the atmosphere set in the beginning make them feel high
. Maybe to them they felt it as ordinary magic as they did not know about what is " true " magic ( this may be subjected to different type of people ) but to those whom had a little experiece in magic , may think its a little :off:

Axl, the examples your friend quoted in the original post (do-or-die 99% escapes) are not examples of stunts making magic worse, they are examples of lousy theater, i.e bad drama - where the end can be seen coming a mile away.

As long as magicians and stuntmen alike continue to insult their audience's intelligence by persistently coming up with garbage like that, then unfortunately people like your friend will become more common.

Regarding the original question, I am not opposed to combining them together. What does it matter as long as spectators react with astonishment?


Magic: A performance displaying the simulation of impossibility.
Stunt: A performance displaying the accomplishment of something almost impossible.


Here's a little secret: I suspect that the emotional response of an audience to these 2 ARE THE SAME. (Caveat: Obviously when both are executed equally well)

After all, if the emotion of astonishment IS our domain (Paul Harris) then it follows that we must use any means necessary to produce it in our spectators no?

Obviously I'm approaching this from the audience's emotional POV, which I know is not the only one.

However, I humbly submit that the audience's POV is ultimately the only one that matters.