Puppet boy

[Martin Gardner]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sajhOsh0C ... re=related

This is what I saw live on New Year's Eve in France, this act rather than this actual performance of it. One simple question, how the f*ck does he do it? I wondered if it was twins or something, but I don't think it's that.

[Phil Reynolds]

One simple question, how the f*ck does he do it?

It's kind of obvious when the clown leaps down and disappears for a moment behind the boxes, then bursts through them, that that's where the switch takes place. Up until then the clown has been in shot the whole time, while the magician hasn't. At some point the magician has changed places with an identically dressed substitute and has gone behind the boxes and put on a clown costume; then when the original clown goes behind the boxes, he simply runs off stage while the magician bursts through and attacks the substitute. Without seeing it live it's hard to know how the audience's attention was misdirected so they didn't see the magician switch with the substitute, but it's not difficult to do. Derren Brown did something very similar in his stage show which was televised a couple of weeks ago, where he changed places with a guy in a gorilla suit.

[Gavin Chipper]

Top of the Pops from the 1980s. Good find.

[Martin Gardner]

You must be giving away your age a bit... because I don't remember that one.

[Martin Gardner]

If you watch the whole thing, all five parts I mean, he does things like that a couple of other times and it's really amazing. Some of it looks impossible.

[Phil Reynolds]

Some of it looks impossible.

That's the idea.

[Matt Morrison]

Zenon's tick/cross was well obvious. Had both on each leg, one under the sock, one above the sock.
I think it's the first time I've ever worked out a 'magic trick'

[Phil Reynolds]

Zenon's tick/cross was well obvious.

Yeah, most of Paul's tricks are like that - he's more of an entertainer than a serious magician IMO. I think Derren Brown is hard to beat at the moment as an entertainer, a seriously good magician and a brilliant debunker - the way he exposes the techniques used by psychics, revivalist preachers and other charlatans puts him on a par with James Randi. I loved that programme The System that he did last year, in which he successfully predicted the outcome of a string of horse races; not only was it (unlike a lot of conjuring tricks) even more fascinating when you realised how he was doing it, but it also taught a valuable lesson about the skewed way many people look at concepts like probability and coincidence, which in turn gives them a fallacious basis for believing in religion and other psycho-claptrap.

[Martin Gardner]

I thought I'd post a few more from the same show (in France).

I'll start with this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgvsK7b7nw

[Jon O'Neill]

Zenon's tick/cross was well obvious.

Yeah, most of Paul's tricks are like that - he's more of an entertainer than a serious magician IMO. I think Derren Brown is hard to beat at the moment as an entertainer, a seriously good magician and a brilliant debunker - the way he exposes the techniques used by psychics, revivalist preachers and other charlatans puts him on a par with James Randi. I loved that programme The System that he did last year, in which he successfully predicted the outcome of a string of horse races; not only was it (unlike a lot of conjuring tricks) even more fascinating when you realised how he was doing it, but it also taught a valuable lesson about the skewed way many people look at concepts like probability and coincidence, which in turn gives them a fallacious basis for believing in religion and other psycho-claptrap.

I strongly stronly strongly recommend his book, Trick of the Mind. Brilliant stuff.

[Martin Gardner]

Then this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-cWJwe6dMhM

[Phil Reynolds]

I strongly stronly strongly recommend his book, Trick of the Mind. Brilliant stuff.

I second that (actually it's Tricks of the Mind). Many years ago I used to think there might be something in astrology because I fitted the profile of the 'typical Libran' so precisely. Having seen the episode of Derren's TV show where he had a group of volunteers in shock because he gave them such a detailed 4-page 'reading' of their characters, before getting them to swap papers and discover that in fact they'd all been given the same reading, I was fascinated to find the full text of it in the book. It made me laugh (and cry a little) at how similar most of us are deep down, and also squirm with embarrassment that I was once so gullible.

[Matt Morrison]

Zenon's tick/cross was well obvious.

Yeah, most of Paul's tricks are like that - he's more of an entertainer than a serious magician IMO. I think Derren Brown is hard to beat at the moment as an entertainer, a seriously good magician and a brilliant debunker - the way he exposes the techniques used by psychics, revivalist preachers and other charlatans puts him on a par with James Randi. I loved that programme The System that he did last year, in which he successfully predicted the outcome of a string of horse races; not only was it (unlike a lot of conjuring tricks) even more fascinating when you realised how he was doing it, but it also taught a valuable lesson about the skewed way many people look at concepts like probability and coincidence, which in turn gives them a fallacious basis for believing in religion and other psycho-claptrap.

Thanks for the book tip (Jon and Phil) - might look into that as I do enjoy watching Derren.

As far as The System, I was severely disappointed, thought it was drivel. The way I saw it was that (obviously) there was no magic, no predictions, it was simply a case of misleading people by not giving them the full information but still asking them to make assumptions. The only way it 'worked' was that it was being presented in a televisual format, at the end of the show when he revealed how he'd done it, I was massively disappointed. I think part of that was self-satisfaction as well as from the start of the programme I'd been saying "well clearly he can't actually predict the horse races, so how is he going to fool us?" but the fooling just felt horribly primitive. It was a bit like asking someone "what's 4 + 2?", and when they respond "6", shouting at them "no you gullible fucking idiot, it's 7 because I forgot to tell you there was another +1 on the end! HA!"

Reading that back through, I don't know if I've really explained myself. After all, surely a lot of magic is about asking people to make assumptions whilst concealing a certain vital part of the working out. But I just felt it was much less clever than anything he's ever done. It could have been presented by absolutely anyone, had nothing to do with Derren's usual inimitable style, and felt more like an expose of a fraudulent pyramid scheme.

[Phil Reynolds]

As far as The System, I was severely disappointed, thought it was drivel. The way I saw it was that (obviously) there was no magic, no predictions, it was simply a case of misleading people by not giving them the full information but still asking them to make assumptions. [...]
Reading that back through, I don't know if I've really explained myself. After all, surely a lot of magic is about asking people to make assumptions whilst concealing a certain vital part of the working out. But I just felt it was much less clever than anything he's ever done. It could have been presented by absolutely anyone, had nothing to do with Derren's usual inimitable style, and felt more like an expose of a fraudulent pyramid scheme.

You're absolutely right, a lot of magic is all about misleading people and getting them to make assumptions based on incomplete information. For instance, a magician makes a large, heavy object vanish into thin air, apparently instantaneously. In many such illusions, the object was actually removed some time previously while your attention was misdirected elsewhere - you only thought it was still there because it was covered with a stiffened cloth, say, which is whisked away to reveal the empty space that was underneath all the time.

With most magic tricks, when the secret is revealed to you, you're disappointed; "Is that all there was to it?", you ask. (I remember some years ago seeing David Blaine on TV, apparently levitating himself in front of crowds of stupefied onlookers on public sidewalks; and, having imagined all kinds of clever ways in which it might have been done, I went and researched it and was bitterly disappointed. Basically, it was all in the editing; what we were seeing on TV was not what the audience were responding to.) Derren Brown's tricks are mindboggling, but they're still tricks; and the secrets of many of them are quite mundane. Ask yourself this: if Derren hadn't revealed what his "system" was, would you still have been disappointed?

What I like about Derren is that, like Penn & Teller, he occasionally reveals his methods if he feels that the method is actually more interesting than the trick (although occasionally he keeps you on the hop, and his reputation intact, by only appearing to reveal the method). I felt that the method used in The System was worthy of explanation because - and this was the point of the programme which, forgive me if I'm wrong, I feel you may have missed - it exposed how humans will all too readily resort to paranormal explanations for phenomena that appear to have no rational basis. The woman in the programme was convinced that Derren genuinely could predict the outcome of horse races because he'd presented her with what appeared to be compelling evidence. In fact the "evidence" was based on a misunderstanding of probability. People believe in everything from gods to UFOs based on far less convincing data and yet will happily point to the infinite variety of forms in a snowflake, say, as "evidence" for their beliefs. Derren Brown is on a crusade in the cause of reason, and I for one think he's brilliant.

[Chris Corby]

In about 1968, I was walking through the street in Portsmouth and a bloke was demonstrating several card tricks. One of them was that he held out a pack of cards, fanned them and they were all different, then he fanned them again and they were all the same - nine of spades. They all had proper 'backs' - I was so intrigued I bought a pack of the cards myself and only when I examined them and read the instructions did I see how it was done. I still have the cards and realise that every time I see a card trick on TV where someone is asked to "choose a card" and then it turns up somewhere else miraculously, I realise that "my" pack of cards is being used - Paul Zenon did it this week with the rope-catching-a-card trick.

For those who don't like their fun spoilt, I won't go further now, but if you do want to know, PM me and all will be explained......

[Clare Sudbery]

I strongly stronly strongly recommend his book, Trick of the Mind.

Yeah, me too. I've just written a book about a similar character, and read loads of fascinating stuff as research. Most of it not on sale to the public (although to be fair with an internet connection you can get most things if you know where to look), about how DB and other mentalists (I'm not being rude, that's the official name for magicians who dop mind-reading etc) do what they do. Mostly I can work out the general gist of how DB does what he does, but sometimes he has me stumped. He's a very talented chap.

I interviewed PZ as part of my research (even though he's not a mentalist) and he's a lovely guy. Introduced me to his mentor, a fascinating bloke who owns a private magic shop (i.e. selling to magicians only) in Blackpool. I also got to know a US mentalist, Kenton Knepper, who gave me access to a whole load of places someone like me shouldn't really be... and it's a fascinating world these guys live in. They take their craft very seriously, although some of them are... well, eccentric.

[Phil Reynolds]

it's a fascinating world these guys live in. They take their craft very seriously, although some of them are... well, eccentric.

Sorry, thought for a moment you were talking about Countdown contestants. Some of them are also mentalists, though more in the sense used by Alan Partridge...

[Martin Gardner]

Not sure if anyone is clicking on these, so I'll post my final three favourites at the same time, noting that the "statue" by Dani Lary which is my absolute favourite is not (yet) on YouTube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yNhDG3n-5 ... re=channel

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_lU0EJ0Lelc

and...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ulx-bWIwskE

[Martin Gardner]

Oh actually it's Jerome Murat that does the statue, so here it is:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=If6gUDsEbkA

[Gavin Chipper]

You must be giving away your age a bit... because I don't remember that one.

Ha ha - it wasn't actually an episode of Top of the Pops (which you know anyway so I don't know why I'm posting this).

[Charlie Reams]

Zenon's tick/cross was well obvious. Had both on each leg, one under the sock, one above the sock.
I think it's the first time I've ever worked out a 'magic trick'

He confirmed this in the bar afterwards, but it was still amusing.

[Charlie Reams]

As far as The System, I was severely disappointed, thought it was drivel.

I just watched it, thought it was excellent. It sounds like you're disappointed mostly because, knowing what Derren Brown normally does, you expected it to be something completely different to what it was. And in a sense it was, because the mind games element was largely absent (except the bit with the photos, which was awesome.) But it still had the same flavour of showing how people constantly overestimate their own understanding of a situation, and the lengths to which magicians will go to pull off a trick.

I was wondering how he pulled the final twist where the horse wins even after "the system" is exposed as fraudulent. One possibility is that he just got lucky, but my suspicion is that the pyramid was actually one level higher than he admitted and he had another five people lined up for the final race. He then filmed the "reveal" moment and a few filler shots of himself watching some race that day with each of them. However you do see him with Kadisha at the end of the crucial race, which would've been pretty difficult to arrange. But still, it's possible -- it was pretty clear which horse was going to win, and the other five could've been hastily spirited away by assistants who explained what was going on.

Also I thought it was cool that, in the bit with the photos, one of the course owners actually picked Kadisha's photo. I wonder whether this bit was filmed afterwards, and they had to find someone in racing with the same initials (not too hard), or whether they just lucked out. I guess with Derren Brown the answer is usually that nothing was left to chance.

[Phil Reynolds]

I just watched [The System], thought it was excellent. It sounds like you're disappointed mostly because, knowing what Derren Brown normally does, you expected it to be something completely different to what it was. And in a sense it was, because the mind games element was largely absent (except the bit with the photos, which was awesome.) But it still had the same flavour of showing how people constantly overestimate their own understanding of a situation, and the lengths to which magicians will go to pull off a trick.

Indeed. I remember reading an interview with Penn and Teller some years ago when they said (OK, Penn said ) that a lot of stage magic seems so inexplicable precisely because audiences underestimate how much effort they'll sometimes put into pulling off quite a modest effect. They cited a trick in one of their C4 TV shows where someone from the audience was asked to sign a playing card which then vanished; the volunteer then selected a fish from a large freezer display which was taken out, filleted and gutted - to reveal the missing card rolled up inside. Most people will have assumed some kind of sleight of hand was involved, or that the audience member was a stooge and the cards were duplicates. In fact, the card was the original, and got inside the fish via an extremely complicated mechanism that required several assistants concealed inside various parts of the set.

I was wondering how he pulled the final twist where the horse wins even after "the system" is exposed as fraudulent. One possibility is that he just got lucky, but my suspicion is that the pyramid was actually one level higher than he admitted and he had another five people lined up for the final race. He then filmed the "reveal" moment and a few filler shots of himself watching some race that day with each of them. However you do see him with Kadisha at the end of the crucial race, which would've been pretty difficult to arrange. But still, it's possible -- it was pretty clear which horse was going to win, and the other five could've been hastily spirited away by assistants who explained what was going on.

Hmm. It's a while ago now, but my memory of it is that the horse he'd originally told her to back actually lost. The twist was that he then told her to look at the betting slip she'd been clutching throughout the race - and it was for a bet on the horse that actually won. My suspicions were aroused before the race when he went off to place the bet for her. I presume that he actually placed a bet on every horse, and then simply switched the slip she was holding for the winning one after the race (it would have been very easy as her attention was anywhere but on the piece of paper she was holding). Sure, he (or rather the production) would have lost money on the failed bets, but there weren't that many horses running and I imagine it would have been well within the budget of a show like this - and another example of going to extreme lengths to secure an effect. Of course, I may be entirely wrong.

Edit: And of course, if your speculation were correct, he would have had to reimburse the other five people who backed the losing horses, so the expense involved would have been the same.

Also, why is your name now in a heavy red font everywhere? I know you're the Supreme Being but it makes the thread index look really ugly, or at least it does on the original skin which is the one I'm using because I hate change.

[Jon Corby]

the other five could've been hastily spirited away

Fuck off.


But yeah, what Phil said about the old switcheroo.

[Phil Reynolds]

I remember reading an interview with Penn and Teller some years ago when they said (OK, Penn said ) that a lot of stage magic seems so inexplicable precisely because audiences underestimate how much effort they'll sometimes put into pulling off quite a modest effect.

There was a great stunt along these lines in another of their C4 shows, when they performed what was billed as "the world's most expensive card trick". Penn went out on location in Piccadilly Circus and asked a passerby to go to a nearby news stand and buy a brand new pack of cards, take the cellophane off, remove the cards, take one at random and keep it concealed, and hand the remainder of the pack to Penn, who fanned out the cards in front of him to show the camera they were all different, thought for a moment - and then told the volunteer what card he was holding.

What we saw, but the volunteer couldn't, was the technology back in the studio which captured a freeze-frame of the fanned deck of cards (it all hinged, supposedly, on Penn's ability to perform a "perfect card fan" so that the deck is evenly spread with all the suits and values visible in the corners of the cards). Specially developed image analysis software was then able to scan the image and work out which card was missing from the deck. This information was fed back to Piccadilly Circus and displayed on one of the huge illuminated billboards, which Penn could see but the volunteer had his back to.

The cost of software development, outside broadcast, satellite link to studio, rental of billboard etc. was supposedly around £50,000 - hence "the world's most expensive card trick".

[OK, so having laboriously typed out the above explanation, I just checked and the fecking thing's on YouTube so just watch it for yourselves.)

[Jon Corby]

I remember that too.

[Phil Reynolds]

Having watched the above card trick again for the first time since it was originally broadcast, I'm not 100% convinced that the explanation is genuine. I don't know if the "perfect fan" is actually achievable under those conditions - you don't actually see Penn fan the deck (and his explanation of it sounds a bit bogus), so it could be a pre-prepared prop deck that's nothing to do with the pack that we saw opened initially. The whole thing could be a set-up and Ian & Sue could be stooges (convenient, don't you think, that their names just happen to be short enough to fit on one line of the display board at the end?), and the "image analysis" might not really be happening in real time (if you think about it, the studio parts of the sequence need not necessarily have been recorded at the same time as the location material as we are meant to believe). I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

I'd be more convinced that the explanation was fake had the card been the three of clubs - almost invariably used by P&T when a "freely chosen" card has actually been forced.

[Gavin Chipper]

I would have thought that if a magician was suitably obsessed and had trained himself in rain man type skills, he would be able to look at a fanned out deck and tell which card was missing anyway. But I suppose that's not the point here.

[Jon Corby]

Having watched the above card trick again for the first time since it was originally broadcast, I'm not 100% convinced that the explanation is genuine. I don't know if the "perfect fan" is actually achievable under those conditions - you don't actually see Penn fan the deck (and his explanation of it sounds a bit bogus), so it could be a pre-prepared prop deck that's nothing to do with the pack that we saw opened initially. The whole thing could be a set-up and Ian & Sue could be stooges (convenient, don't you think, that their names just happen to be short enough to fit on one line of the display board at the end?), and the "image analysis" might not really be happening in real time (if you think about it, the studio parts of the sequence need not necessarily have been recorded at the same time as the location material as we are meant to believe). I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

I'd be more convinced that the explanation was fake had the card been the three of clubs - almost invariably used by P&T when a "freely chosen" card has actually been forced.

I also remember thinking all this.

(I'm on red-host posting form today)

[Phil Reynolds]

The whole thing could be a set-up and Ian & Sue could be stooges

OK, so according to this Wired article, that's pretty much it. (Incidentally, the piece is well worth reading in its entirety; Penn goes even further up in my esteem for being a close friend of Rob Pike.)

[Charlie Reams]

Hmm. It's a while ago now, but my memory of it is that the horse he'd originally told her to back actually lost. The twist was that he then told her to look at the betting slip she'd been clutching throughout the race - and it was for a bet on the horse that actually won. My suspicions were aroused before the race when he went off to place the bet for her. I presume that he actually placed a bet on every horse, and then simply switched the slip she was holding for the winning one after the race (it would have been very easy as her attention was anywhere but on the piece of paper she was holding). Sure, he (or rather the production) would have lost money on the failed bets, but there weren't that many horses running and I imagine it would have been well within the budget of a show like this - and another example of going to extreme lengths to secure an effect. Of course, I may be entirely wrong.

Yeah, I guess that's another possibility, and given his general penchant for sleight of hand and other body manipulation tricks (eg the one where he steals the guy's tie, wallet, watch, keys, ...), a more likely one I think. Would be pretty easy to perform the switch in a crowd.

[Jason Larsen]

Terry Fator, eat your heart out (Has anybody seen Season 2 of America's Got Talent with our good friend, Jerry Springer?)

Watching Puppet Boy gives me shades of Terry!

[Phil Reynolds]

I just watched [The System], thought it was excellent.

Also, why is your name now in a heavy red font everywhere? I know you're the Supreme Being but it makes the thread index look really ugly, or at least it does on the original skin which is the one I'm using because I hate change.

It's all right, it's gone back to normal now.

[M. George Quinn]

Oh heck, just spotted this thread. I should really pipe in, I sup hoes.

Hello! It's all magic. Shut up.

Hope that helps.

[M. George Quinn]

In about 1968, I was walking through the street in Portsmouth and a bloke was demonstrating several card tricks. One of them was that he held out a pack of cards, fanned them and they were all different, then he fanned them again and they were all the same - nine of spades. They all had proper 'backs' - I was so intrigued I bought a pack of the cards myself and only when I examined them and read the instructions did I see how it was done. I still have the cards and realise that every time I see a card trick on TV where someone is asked to "choose a card" and then it turns up somewhere else miraculously, I realise that "my" pack of cards is being used - Paul Zenon did it this week with the rope-catching-a-card trick.

The svengali deck is a favourite among pitchmen and although sold often to the public I still think it's an amazing wee deck. The principle is very old (the same principle can be used to change the contents of a book and is not only used by magicians today but was also outlined in "The discoverie of wytchcraft" the earliest text on presdigitation) However, with it being so common, not many professional magicians use them so I would very much doubt that it is the explanation for most of the card tricks you have seen on television. I have a few packs of them but generally use a completely normal deck for most tricks and can still name the card/catch it on a rope/pull it out of my pocket,mouth,dodgy looking sparkly box etc etc etc

George

[Jason Larsen]

Terry Fator, go overseas!

Everyone here knows they want to see you around at some point!

[Phil Reynolds]

This is one of my favourite illusions, often imitated but performed here to perfection by its inventor, the great Robert Harbin. The genius of this illusion is that even when you realise how it's done, the optical illusion it depends on is so good that it still looks impossible.

If Paul Zenon ever did this one on Countdown, Rachel would be perfectly suited to being the assistant...

[M. George Quinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N83WEha-BFU

this guy's pretty good.

[Phil Reynolds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N83WEha-BFU

this guy's pretty good.

Impressive. I watched the first coin trick a couple of times and figured out how it was done - then moved on to the bit with the salt cellar and was (and am) genuinely amazed.

[M. George Quinn]

I've no idea either. Must be magic. There's alot of this guy on youtube, well worth a search.

Here's a handy talent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybRNdbzMXgs

[Phil Reynolds]

I think Derren Brown is hard to beat at the moment as an entertainer, a seriously good magician and a brilliant debunker - the way he exposes the techniques used by psychics, revivalist preachers and other charlatans puts him on a par with James Randi.

I strongly stronly strongly recommend his book, Trick of the Mind. Brilliant stuff.

I trust you'll all be watching C4 (or E4, or More4 - they're all showing it) tonight at 10.35 as Derren "predicts" tonight's Lotto numbers live on air.