Elwood: Hi Pete,

I'll be the one to ask (although the questions were posed by a friend of mine, Contax, on a different bulletin board).

"How does he feel about the company that produces Monkey
Magic exposing secrets of magicians and psychics in other programmes of theirs?"

How would you react if a rival company produced a programme where Monkey Magic secrets or Derren Brown's methods were revealed?"

For the record, I wasn't a huge fan of Monkey Magic, although I was pleased to see Magic on TV getting a bit of press. I did quite enjoy the Secrets of Magic show at the time, although I do feel now, having been asked a million times by clients and spectators if that was really how it done, that the show has only served to trivialise Magic, and turn it into a puzzle to be worked out, rather than a moment of pure astonishment and amazement that should be cherished and enjoyed.

I confess I smiled when I read your comment "For the record, I wasn't a huge fan of Monkey Magic" what I think you actually said at the time was "What a load of rubbish. Try harder next week!"

Ah the dangers of posting your thoughts on the net, they always come back to haunt you As a result I'm not so keen to make hard and fast comments that don't allow me to change my mind.

I don't have any problem with Objective making other shows as long a they continue to support and put time and effort into Monkey Magic. I believe in our show and want to see it get the best chance it can to succeed. Objective is a company committed wholeheartedly to magic and promoting magic, it does them no favours to destroy magic and as a result they would have a different opinion to some on the topic of exposure. I have tried to explain this elsewhere so won't repeat it here.

If a rival company wanted to make a show exposing Monkey Magic secrets I guess I wouldn't be pleased but then a great deal of our work is in the presentations rather than the methods. Those methods that are our own material we don't talk about, making it harder to copy but I agree not impossible.

I hope that answers some of your 'friends' questions

Peter Mc

Perhaps it was a bit harsh, especially seeing now how successful the series was, and how many laypeople enjoyed it. It just wasn't to my taste, although as I said, I was pleased to see Magic getting publicity and airtime in a non-exposure way.

Incidentally, the questions were posed by someone else.. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger...

As for my own views on exposure, as I've said here and elsewhere before, methods should always be impossible to detect, and the presentation should remove any need for the spectators to question what they have just seen as being anything other than real Magic. The problem that I have now with Secrets of Magic is that if it does go on to be a series then it will encourage people to think of Magic as being merely gadgets and gimmicks, stooges and wires. By showing Magic as a puzzle to be worked out, the show missed out on the real secret of Magic - astonishment and enjoyment.

Peter: Fascinating... I've gone from never responding to anything posted on these magic forums no matter how frustrating, ill informed or offensive and now I'm skipping over the internet to read other lists while answering questions here

It obviously raise a fair amount of passion amongst your friends Elwood, and by the way I'm intrigued to know how you worded your original question now if it got deleted!

I realise that my opinions on exposure differ slightly to the mainstream but I honestly think that motivation is the big key to this debate. People are quick to condemn as monsters those they perceive as having broken the rules without opening their minds to the possibilities that there are other approaches.

I don't want to see magic reduced to a series of puzzles but on the other hand I'm afraid I find it very unlikely that your audience is watching you and 'believing' what they see is real magic. What they hopefull are watching is great entertainment that makes them feel relaxed and good about life, that enables them to forget the stress of work and home and switch off.

If part of that process is to intrigue and draw them in using simple ideas they can do themselves and share with their friends, I really don't see whats wrong with that.

This is an endless debate but you can let your friends know that this monkey definitely knows who 'the organ grinder is'!

Peter Mc

Elwood: Peter says " great entertainment that makes them feel relaxed and good about life, that enables them to forget the stress of work and home and switch off."

Exactly! Okay, so it's not real Magic, but as Tamaritz outs it "It's exactly how real Magic would look!"

I try to avoid making anything look any less than real, and try to go down as many different roads as possible to shake of the "retrograde analysts" who may be following.

The whole point of Magic, as far as I'm concerned is to entertain, not to get people so wound up trying to figure out a method that they wind up hating us all!

Oh, and the original question alluded to money, exposure guilt and ethics.

I can see now that you have your head and heart in the right places.

One thing to clear up for good though, Pete, and that is as much as I didn't like MM, it wasn't a personal critique of any of you guys individually, more the format of the show. I've been in the entertainment industry for long enough to know that you have to wear the brown lipstick once in a while!

As much as the show itself annoyed me, I have the utmost respect for you guys and your obvious abilities, in much the same way as I respect Etienne Pradier, John Lenahan, Blaine, Geller and countless others, while not always liking the events/shows they choose to get involved with.