I just saw P&T 'Don't do this at home' and I was wondering, why is it that everyone hates the Masked Magician for exposing effects yet I've never seen anyone attack P&T for their exposure?

Everyone?

Well, I suppose there are no masked magician fans... so perhaps we can let that sweeping genny slide.

Where were you when P&T first exposed the cups and balls? There was much discussion in the community at that time.

I did not like the masked magician shows because they exposed stuff that looked odd, and the explanations were narrated in a BORED SOUNDING voice over etc. It is one thing to share the enthusiasm about magic and its clever methods... another to drone about the cheap mechanics and hokey props.

One of my two cents

Penn & Teller have been taken to task many, many times by members of the magic community for their presumed and perceived exposure.
Yet they still, to this day continue to engage in this most heinous practice.

Got to love them though.

To understand Penn and Teller and why they do what they do, you'll have to dig a little deeper.

I happen to enjoy and respect them a whole lot.

Also: Every "exposure" P&T is in fact a fake exposure.

To wit: When P&T do the cups and balls with clear plastic cups and tinfoil balls, we the audience still can't keep up with the rapid-fire patter and expert manipulation. As Teller put it - There's one move in which a ball is rolled off the top of one cup to the table, and another is loaded. Even when you KNOW that's what's supposed to happen, you don't see it.

Second: "Liftoff for Love / Ripoff of Love" is, well, not an exposure. "Liftoff" doesn't work the same was as "Ripoff". You know (stealing from Danny Hustle)... "Magician!" Most of the time when they 'expose' something, they're really coming up with a significantly more complicated way to do an effect than is practical, efficient, or even possible. But hey - we're all being 'let in' on the 'secret'

Third: Penn & Teller are the "Bad Boys of Magic"... because they say they are. We all just bought into their hype

Most of P & T's "exposure" is exposing stuff that they themselves created strictly for that purpose. They are entertainers first and magicians second. In my opinion by studying what they do and WHY (and not how) they do it we can all learn some serious lessons in marketing, packaging, brand-naming, and of course presentation.

The bomastic one drives me into the wall, I think it might be difficult having a conversation in his midst...but as a team they are pure 100% crackerjack entertainment and sharp as razors...their 'message' and percieved agenda is powerful and relevant...their creativity is unmatched during this modern era...and they are good magicians to boot and get regular checks. I defy most to attempt to replicate their so-called exposures...kinda like other comedy teams trying to do Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First"...thud.

P&T? Wow.


Doug

Meilechl writes: ". . . I've never seen anyone attack P&T for their exposure. . ."

Then you haven't read all my stuff!

As for their "fake exposures" and "so-called exposures" and "exposing stuff that they themselves created strictly for that purpose", well, that's just simply nonsense.

On one of their early TV specials, they exposed the venerable TT by having the audience vanish a silk in a tip (each member of the audience was equipped with a TT and a silk). And I doubt very much that they invented that or that it was "fake" or "so-called".

That pair of buffoons, along with other TV exposers like Mac King, are considered "good guys" by a large number of powers in magic and, therefore, are immune from any criticism of their exposure. The Masked Magician has no such support and, therefore, is considered "fair game".

Exposure is exposure.

Just as you can't be "a little bit pregnant", you can't expose some tricks to an audience (on TV, for example) that doesn't really care about the methodology and get off scot free -- unless you are P and T or King or somebody like that.

Sure people like and watch P and T; people also like and watch dog fighting, too. Does that make it good?

Good analogy. Depends on the Dogs....I'd rather bring a Tiger to a Dog fight though.

Interesting points Peter...I never saw P&T in their early days...just the TV stuff over the past couple of years.

Did anyone hear P&T's mini-lecture on magic which they gave during their show two years back? The tour came through my hometown about two years ago. The mini-lecture came during a knife throwing demonstration. P&T claimed that there are two kinds of people: 1)ones who want to know the secrets, and 2) those who want to be amazed. So they invited people from the first camp to keep their eyes open and those from the second camp to close their eyes during the "exposure" of the knife throwing routine.

I am sorry I can't give more detail, but this information was given me by a close friend who saw the show.

alan

Darkrider, is that a reference to the movie 'Magic Christian' ? Funny comedy has a scene where someone brings a tiger to a dog show, and what happens makes the TV news.

Penn and Teller have moved on a bit to exposing other kinds of stuff. They have a Showtime series that has discussed topics of a less magical nature.

Of course, one of the funniest "exposures" was the trick they pulled on Saturday Night Live--and which was the opening sequence in their movie _P&T Get Killed_--when they appeared to be vanishing objects and then in rapid fire levitating everything from muffins to a power drill. The camera pulls back and spins into upright position to reveal they are hanging upside down behind the also inverted desk just letting objects fly away willy-nilly under the force of gravity. Their ties and hair and everything is perfectly in place. This was all in good fun and exposed no magical method that I know of.

However, I think I am with Peter Marucci in being uncomfortable with the mass TT exposure.

alan

Johnathan: Never saw magic Christian....but I've owned dogs and worked with Tigers...that gave me some clues...

In Penn and Teller Get Killed I think that they expose quite a bit. Weirdly enough my daughter just made me watch the Masked Magician tape this evening. That's a lot of exposure. Tommy Cooper was a big hit in his day and he exposed all kinds of stuff. It's kind of like... "I'll show you a secret, you'll enjoy my show since you are part of the "IN" crowd, you'll probably come back for more,and my financial condition improves!" That's how I see it. Bringing them IN. Giving them things that they haven't paid for. A shortcut to success.......Tempting? Very Tempting.

Peter, in what way do you consider having members of a studio audience performing a magic trick being exposure? In fact, they performed the trick better than many self-appointed magicians. The trick was neither explained nor given away by sloppy performance. How can that be exposure?

Peter , you write like P&T or Mac exposed one of your tricks or something. You act like laymen go home after P&T shows and practice the trick they exposed that night. I have problems remembering how to do tricks after seeing a lecture.
I remember talking to people after the guy who revealed Blaine's tricks on tv. , everybody was like Oh I know how everything was done blah blah blah.
As of today they all forgot how Blaine does his tricks.
Do you know how many laymen know about tt? And you can still use it in front of them and they won't even have a clue on how it was done.
Anyone after a magic show on TV can walk into a magic store and buy what the magician did on TV.
IS THAT EXPOSURE? You might as well hold every magic shop dealer responsible.
And look at the upside on this, Mac King might expose some tricks on TV but look at all the kids that feel they're a part of magic. This is how I first loved magic someone exposed a trick to me when I was eight and the rest is history.

Even a seasoned pro would have a very difficult time in pulling off P&T's Cups & Balls Routine after seeing the "Exposure". Their "explanation" leaves out a lot of details, and is done so fast that no one could possibly learn from it. As far as the TT is concerned, I am not worried. When I was working in the magic shop, the #1 thing that lay-people asked me for was "that fake thumb". A TT comes in every beginner's/kid's magic set. The fact that they exist has been in the public domain for a very long time. Besides, how many times have you guys gone to a performance or a lecture, and was blown away by a killer effect, and then found out that a TT was employed? I, for one, love Penn And Teller.

Snilsson writes:

You must be watching some pretty awful magicians, then; the P and T studio audience did just about everything wrong and you would have to be a true dimwit to not know how it was done.

And inidyls writes:

Hardly the same thing! If you are watching TV and some dolt exposes a magic trick, you have neither asked for nor wanted it done. If you go to a magic store, you first have to find the store, then part with your money to buy the trick.
In one case, there is no personal involvement; in the second case, there is considerable.

inidyls continues:

History? I don't think so!

And tell the magician who wrote to a major magic magazine that King had exposed the centrepiece of his (the writer's) act on TV; I'm sure he won't agree with you!

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways; either you're against exposure or you're in favor of it.
Anything else is waffling and unbecoming of a performer.

Snilsson writes:

I managed to find a tape of one Penn and Teller TV show (I believe there are several) where the audience members perform the hanky trick. It's well-produced and everyone does the trick synchronously using the same words and the same motions. In my expereince, few magicians take the time to block, script and rehearse there magic this carefully. I can tell that Penn and Teller are using TT:s but I'm not completely sure that the audience members are. Penn and Teller are sneaky guys and I wouldn't be surprised if they invented a new method.

Snilsson writes:

They didn't and the audience is.