I have already showed that I am willing to believe that DB uses stooges, however, I am not convinced with this example. Like the other posters here, I do not think it is important that the "young woman" as she is presented is an actor by profession. What is important is if she is getting money for acting according to a script by DB.
In the "Hero at 30000 feet" show, we are given the impression that the hero-to-be is an ordinary person chosen through his ability to follow clues laid out for him by DB. In the Voodoo doll show, we are not told anything about how the woman was chosen. Indeed, we are not even told that this was the first time that DB had a session with Magda Rodriguez. I find it very likely that there is a lot more to this scene that we do not see, such as previous session where ms Rodriguez being persuaded to believe that her feet were bound when the doll's feet were bound, and so on. The fact that she immediately does what DB asks her to do is for me a sign that she has tried it before. It does not need to be a sign that she is paid to act.
In short there are lots of other ways to do this trick than through using ms Rodriguez in her capacity as an actress.
By the way, I see no sign of the use of hypnosis here. In fact, if this was a use of hypnosis, I would be very disappointed, because the point of the show was that people do things because of their beliefs, not that they can be hypnotized to do things.
The evidence you gave that she was acting relied on the assumption that she was acting. When challenged, you clarified that it was an assumption, but a reasonable one.
There you go again, putting words into my mouth. You're backsliding into your old scarecrow-building ways.
The things you're attributing to "evidence" are not evidence, nor did I ever present them as such.
The actual facts, as supported by evidence, that I base my opinion on, are these:
Magda Rodriguez is a professional actress and member of the UK Actors Union.
Magda Rodriguez appeared on a professional television production, broadcast nationally in Britain.
The TV show is a magic show that features a well-known mentalist who frequently uses hypnotism in his act.
Hypnotism is a popular meme that is widely believed to exhibit certain visual hallmarks, like an unnatural, robotic posture and a fixed, thousand-yard stare.
Real hypnotism does not exhibit such effects.
On that TV show, the actress was depicted behaving strangely, in the manner popularly associated with hypnosis, performing activities of a fantastic nature (visibly reacting to mistreatment of a voodoo doll on command from the magician).
Derren Brown lied in his introduction to the show when he said that no actors were used, because Magda Rodriguez is in fact an actress.
On that TV show, the fact that Magda Rodriguez is an actress was withheld from the viewing audience.
Now, due to the fantastic nature of the situation, it seems unlikely that her behavior was genuine. Given the fact that she's a professional actress, it's far more likely that her behavior was part of a theatrical performance for the purpose of contributing to the TV show, and that her identity as an actress was withheld in order to make the performance appear real.
You still haven't answered any of my questions, by the way.
Are you arguing that that hypothesis is unreasonable, or that it contradicts the facts I presented above?
Do you have a better alternate hypothesis that also fits the available evidence?
You can say that you misspoke when answering the original question, but you cannot say that I was falsely accusing you of circular logic, because you did present an example of circular logic.
Please quote the post where I said that those particular statements were being presented as "evidence". You can't, because I never said such a thing.
You just made that part up, because if it were true, that completely unfounded assertion would have justified you to accuse me of circular reasoning. But up to that point in the discussion, I had never claimed to have presented any actual evidence to support my position. That accusation was a lie fabricated by you.
The proper thing for you to do at this juncture would be to simply quit lying and admit you misinterpreted my argument. Intellectual dishonesty is a really bad look on a skeptics' forum.
I think we're just going to disagree yet again on the definition of "stooge". I'm also still failing to see how her being an actress is at all relevant to this hypothesis. Remove all of the stuff about her being an actress and I'd still agree with the hypothesis, while still disagreeing that that made her a stooge.
She's a union actress appearing on a national TV production. That's a pretty conclusive indication she got paid for her performance. That's what it means to be in the actors' union. You get paid for appearances on TV. IN other words, hired.
All one needs to do is look where he sources his "hypnotism" subjects from. Soliciting and screening applicants from the ranks of amateur actors yearning to appear on TV will yield a lot of prime candidates to play along with just about any situation.
Are you now agreeing that these two statements were wrong and that Brown does not, in fact, source his subjects "from the ranks of amateur actors", and further that he said that in the introduction to The Experiments: The Assassin?
I'll admit that my implication that all the people who apply to be on his show are amateur actors was a hasty generalization, but I'm not going to admit both statements were wrong, because apart from that hasty generalization, both statements were correct.
We know the people applied to be on the show, because he said so in his introduction:
The fact that the people applied to be on his show indicates some agency was involved in the process. We also know from the BBC investigation into Objective Productions that they routinely employ talent agencies that operate over the Internet soliciting "people keen to appear on television."
Once again, I can't see how it's damning to have people who applied to be on a television programme on a television programme. Is he supposed to fill the audience with people who'd rather not be there?
I never said it was damning to have people who applied to be on TV on TV. That's a strawman argument. Quit distorting my position to make it appear ridiculous.
My whole point was that soliciting people who want to be on TV creates a situation whereby the entire audience is filled with people eager and motivated to play along with the show. It's a way of gaming the the studio audience to be willingly complicit in the tricks, basically making them "instant stooges."
Anyway, this whole line of discussion about The Experiments is irrelevant.
Use all the semantic technicalities you want to try and restrict the usage of the word "stooge." You can't weasel around the fact that Magda Rodriguez, a professional, union card carrying actress, was employed by Derren Brown for a particularly nuanced hypnosis demonstration that required acting ability.
I find it very likely that there is a lot more to this scene that we do not see, such as previous session where ms Rodriguez being persuaded to believe that her feet were bound when the doll's feet were bound, and so on.
The fact that she immediately does what DB asks her to do is for me a sign that she has tried it before. It does not need to be a sign that she is paid to act.
By the way, I see no sign of the use of hypnosis here. In fact, if this was a use of hypnosis, I would be very disappointed, because the point of the show was that people do things because of their beliefs, not that they can be hypnotized to do things.
She's a union actress appearing on a national TV production. That's a pretty conclusive indication she got paid for her performance. That's what it means to be in the actors' union. You get paid for appearances on TV. IN other words, hired.
Stephen Fry ,Matt Lucas,Simon Pegg are all union actors I doubt they got paid for being on the show. It this is true then your point is void. It is possible that everyone who appears on his shows gets paid(celebs possibly no tincluded) so that negates your point.
It does not follow that because her job is an actress means she was acting in that clip. You cannot prove that,its just your conspiracy theory.
I'll admit that my implication that all the people who apply to be on his show are amateur actors was a hasty generalization, but I'm not going to admit both statements were wrong, because apart from that hasty generalization, both statements were correct.
We know the people applied to be on the show, because he said so in his introduction:
The fact that the people applied to be on his show indicates some agency was involved in the process.
Derren recruits via his website so again your point is invalid.
I never said it was damning to have people who applied to be on TV on TV. That's a strawman argument. Quit distorting my position to make it appear ridiculous.
My whole point was that soliciting people who want to be on TV creates a situation whereby the entire audience is filled with people eager and motivated to play along with the show. It's a way of gaming the the studio audience to be willingly complicit in the tricks, basically making them "instant stooges."
Anyway, this whole line of discussion about The Experiments is irrelevant to the fact that Magda Rodriguez, a professional, union card carrying actress, was employed by Derren Brown for a particularly nuanced hypnosis demonstration that required acting ability.
Derren uses editing and pre-show work be it hypnotic suggestion or "Pick a card and remember it for later". Its no biggie.That is all that happened with this effect.
Stephen Fry ,Matt Lucas,Simon Pegg are all union actors I doubt they got paid for being on the show. It this is true then your point is void. It is possible that everyone who appears on his shows gets paid(celebs possibly no tincluded) so that negates your point.
It does not follow that because her job is an actress means she was acting in that clip. You cannot prove that,its just your conspiracy theory.
It's not a "conspiracy theory." There's no conspiracy, nor am I alleging one. It's not illegal nor harmful, nor even out of the ordinary for a mentalist to employ stooges. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is an extremely lame appeal to ridicule. You resort to childish attacks like that because you don't have a leg to stand on. You've offered nothing at all to this discussion except lame ridicule. You've offered no evidence, nor even a reasonable alternate hypothesis to counter the one I've proposed.
As I said before, if you think I'm wrong, then why don't you propose a more plausible hypothesis that better explains the results and is supported by all the facts?
Even if he does "recruit via his website," how does that invalidate my point?
You seem to have a flawed understanding of how deductive reasoning works. Merely questioning a conclusion or raising alternate possibilities to explain some of the facts does not automatically render it invalid.
Do you have an alternate explanation that makes more sense? Surely, you must have something substantial to back up all your bombastic outrage? Let's hear it.
It's not a "conspiracy theory." There's no conspiracy, nor am I alleging one. It's not illegal nor harmful, nor even out of the ordinary for a mentalist to employ stooges.
No-one said it was. However Derren expilcitly states he doesnt,others do not.
Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is an extremely lame appeal to ridicule. You resort to childish attacks like that because you don't have a leg to stand on. You've offered nothing at all to this discussion except lame ridicule. You've offered no evidence, nor even a reasonable alternate hypothesis to counter the one I've proposed.
I dont need to provid evidence to prove a negative. It was simple mild hypnosis embellished with editing.What is hard to understand for you?
As I said before, if you think I'm wrong, then why don't you propose a more plausible hypothesis that better explains the results and is supported by all the facts?
1. I have never used stooges. People generally imagine I must do if they can find no other explanation. But I don’t: it would be artistically repugnant, totally unnecessary, impractical, and would spell career suicide. 2. My techniques are rooted in conjuring magic and hypnosis. All else is most likely misdirection and should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.
You seem to have a flawed understanding of how deductive reasoning works. Merely questioning a conclusion or raising alternate possibilities to explain some of the facts does not automatically render it invalid.
Do you have an alternate explanation that makes more sense? Surely, you must have something substantial to back up all your bombastic outrage? Let's hear it.
No-one said it was. However Derren expilcitly states he doesnt,others do not.
I dont need to provid evidence to prove a negative. It was simple mild hypnosis embellished with editing.What is hard to understand for you?
What's hard for me to understand is why you say I haven't supported my claim when I've provided evidence that she's a professional actress in the UK actors' union, who appeared on Derren Brown's national TV show in the UK, even despite Derren Brown's flat-out denial that he used actors in that particular show.
What's even harder for me to understand is why you think you can make a claim like "it was simple mild hypnosis embellished with editing," without providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Actually, to tell the truth it's not difficult at all for me to understand why you engage in that manner of discussion. I understand quite well the reason why you employ such obvious logical fallacies and double-standards. The thing is, Rule 0 rather restricts my freedom to point it out too blatantly. Besides, you've been doing such a good job of demonstrating it yourself, that it really isn't necessary for me to stoop to commenting on your own personal shortcomings.
I provided evidence in the have you watched derren browns "the experiments" thread to support the facts I cited above. I'm not going to go to the trouble of digging it all up again, just because somebody else decided to resurrect the same old argument again in a new thread.
It doesn't "void my point." You don't understand what you're talking about, or why simply raising doubts should not serve to conclusively "invalidate" anything.
Yeah, that "Point 1" has also been demonstrated to be false. Other magicians have been busted using stooges in the past, and it hasn't "spelled career suicide" for them.
Derren Brown also says, "if I make a statement on these shows, it will be true." Which has also been conclusively demonstrated to be a lie. So I don't think we can really take him at his word on anything he says regarding his act.
That should come as no surprise, considering he's a magician after all. His entire vocation and career is built upon deception. I might expect some measure of honesty regarding other subjects, but not necessarily in public discussions of his act.
As I've already said before, I don't really care if he uses stooges or not. I don't really care about his methods at all, so long as he makes it known that the tricks he's doing are illusions presented for entertainment purposes and doesn't misrepresent them as some kind of educational demonstration like he does in The Experiments.
Nope, you haven't provided a single plausible alternate explanation. Calling my conclusion "lame" is another unwarranted appeal to ridicule. Others and I have presented evidence that Derren Brown used an actor at least once while flatly denying it.
What evidence have you shown? None, except to point to Derren Brown's own words, which have already been exposed as lies.
You're really not very good at this critical thinking and logical debating stuff, are you?
Anyway, I'm sick of rehashing this whole argument all over again, especially with someone as ornery and dishonest as yourself. I'm out. Have fun discussing Derren and his stooges without me.
John, your "plausible explanation" has nothing to it other than "this woman works as an actress." You haven't been able to demonstrate that she was employed by the show, that she was following a script, or any reason that her occupation is of relevance. So far we have what amounts to several pages of you saying "She's an actress, DUH!" So your hypothesis has been tested and found completely lacking in evidence, proof or reason. As a skeptic, what do you think we should do with such a hypothesis?
John, your "plausible explanation" has nothing to it other than "this woman works as an actress." You haven't been able to demonstrate that she was employed by the show, that she was following a script, or any reason that her occupation is of relevance. So far we have what amounts to several pages of you saying "She's an actress, DUH!" So your hypothesis has been tested and found completely lacking in evidence, proof or reason. As a skeptic, what do you think we should do with such a hypothesis?
...count yourself lucky this thread has only been going a few pages. Over in the other thread it went over thirty pages: with still only the one single datapoint: the actress, as evidence.
This thread is looking to be a retread of the last one: and still no proof that Brown uses stooges: with one single bit of evidence "this woman works as an actress" blown out of complete proportion.
Good for you. I'm not as big a spender as you, so let's keep the stakes to just 100 British Pounds.
Now, the magic doll routine is taken from Derren Brown's "Trick of the Mind" show (Season 1, Episode 4). You're correct that the beginning of the show issues the usual (bogus) disclaimer about not using stooges. However, what you overlooked, and what has now cost you 100 pounds, is that he also declares that no ACTORS are used.
The exact words spoken by Derren Brown are:
"AT NO POINT [verbal emphasis Brown's] are actors or stooges used in this show".
So, as I said, he did tell viewers no actors were used, notwithstanding the fact the lady in the doll routine is (it has now come to light) an actor. Simple as that.
I've just checked the intro of the episode in question and you're right. We could quibble over the definition of the word "used", but I won't do that.
I didn't, however, lose the bet that I made for any amount of money, and you didn't specify an amount of money before you made yours. So I think it reasonable that your bet have the same terms as mine. PM me an address to send it to, and I'll send you a tenner.
So, then, if the same is true of anybody from any profession in any hypnotism show, how is her being an actress evidence that she's a stooge? Surely she could have any job and still fit the description of being "in on the trick" that's being employed here?
I'm also still failing to see how her being an actress is at all relevant to this hypothesis. Remove all of the stuff about her being an actress and I'd still agree with the hypothesis, while still disagreeing that that made her a stooge.
So, then, if the same is true of anybody from any profession in any hypnotism show, how is her being an actress evidence that she's a stooge? Surely she could have any job and still fit the description of being "in on the trick" that's being employed here?
She's a union actress appearing on a national TV production. That's a pretty conclusive indication she got paid for her performance. That's what it means to be in the actors' union. You get paid for appearances on TV. IN other words, hired.
No it doesn't. In some programmes, for example, he's said that he's put adverts in the back of Broadcast. Responding to an advert in a paper does not require an agency.
We also know from the BBC investigation into Objective Productions that they routinely employ talent agencies that operate over the Internet soliciting "people keen to appear on television."
The only quote I've seen on the matter said that participants "had been recruited to take part in the show through websites 'popular with people keen to appear on television'". If you have a quote which explicitly says that these websites are connected to agencies, then please provide a link. As it is, it seems like an assumption on your part.
Besides, it's just a minor point, but it should be noted that the quote in question is talking about a different TV programme made by the same company. It's probably a reasonable assumption that similar recruitment methods could be used for Brown's programmes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that assumption is actually correct.
My whole point was that soliciting people who want to be on TV creates a situation whereby the entire audience is filled with people eager and motivated to play along with the show.
I would just like to point out that here you're complaining that I'm using the word "stooge" as it's actually used in the industry we're talking about.
You can't weasel around the fact that Magda Rodriguez, a professional, union card carrying actress, was employed by Derren Brown for a particularly nuanced hypnosis demonstration that required acting ability.
Yeah, that "Point 1" has also been demonstrated to be false. Other magicians have been busted using stooges in the past, and it hasn't "spelled career suicide" for them.
Again ,other magicians dont explicity state they dont use stooges.Derren Brown does.
Look at this way Derren says over and over he doesnt use stooges so if it were found he does he would look a massive hypocrite and a liar ,lose a lot of face and respect by his fans and maybe not career suicide but certainly throw doubt on any future performance;which would be bad enough.
Others and I have presented evidence that Derren Brown used an actor at least once while flatly denying it.
No you havent.All your proven is that someone who was an actress by profession appeared on his TV show. THAT'S IT.
Dont BS with your "evidence " and "proof" you got nothing man.I and others have repeatedly told you this ,your refusal to accept it is worrying.
We all accept that Magda Rodriguez is a professional actress. What we haven't seen is any real evidence that she was hired in her professional capacity and given a script of what to do on the show. The claim that as an actress, she would know what was expected of her is not evidence it's unsupported speculation and anyone, professional actor or not, could have seen this sort of thing and know as much as a professional actress. Derren Brown has used obvious, well known actors in his shows before. I assume there's no great mystery to the fact that Stephen Fry, Simon Pegg, or others are actors. (I'm making a perhaps unwarranted assumption here) But no one here believes Derren Brown has supernatural powers. He's basically a stage magician and can get the effects he does without magic powers and without hiring and couching an actress as his accomplice. Magda Rodriguez's profession is a red herring. It has very little to no bearing on the matter at hand.
I'm through with all this nitpicky nonsense. I already stated I don't have conclusive, material evidence (like a contract or script) that would convince somebody whose mind is already made up. But the circumstantial evidence is strongly indicative that Magda Rodriguez was paid to act a part. She's definitely an actress, and Derren Brown certainly lied about that when he said "no actors" were used. As I said, it seems to me by far the most reasonable explanation, in that it accounts for all the known facts and doesn't involve extraordinary claims like "hypnotic mind control," or goofy semantic evasiveness to weaken the definition of the word "stooge."
As for those of you arguing that the fact that she's an actress is a red herring and doesn't mean she was paid, you guys obviously know very little about show business. The UK Actors Union (called "Equity") operates in a very similar fashion to the SAG here in the US, in that all union jobs in professional theatre/screen arts are regulated by contract according to union rules. You'll see that ITV ("Channel 4") is listed in Equity's list of union employers. So in case you thought otherwise, it's not like a trained, accomplished, card-carrying professional actress would just show up at a TV studio along with a bunch of audience members and "extras" in order to get on a TV show. Professional actors in the Equity union don't perform on nationally broadcast television programs without being specifically hired on contract, and paid at least "scale" wages. A prominent role like the one Magda Rodriguez performed in that "Voodoo Doll" segment (she's basically the star of the piece) would in the USA have paid very highly, though I understand things are quite different in the UK and actors don't usually get paid residuals based on the popularity or profitability of the piece. But the fact that she's a professional union actress appearing in a national TV show means that she was hired and paid for her work.
Comparing Simon Pegg's and Stephen Fry's appearances on Derren Brown's show as "actors' is also disingenuous, because those guys were introduced by name and featured as special guest stars on the show, whereas Magda Rodriguez was not identified at all and her profession as a trained and accomplished actress was kept secret from the audience. Simon Pegg and Stephen Fry also did not perform theatrical roles wherein real acting was required, like a zombie-like "hypnotic trance" with creepy choking sounds while a rope was being wound around a voodoo doll.
The fact that Derren Brown employed a professional actress to act like she was being paralyzed and choked by a voodoo doll (spoiler alert: she wasn't really being paralyzed and choked... that's why it's called an act) is plenty evidence enough for me to conclude that he uses stooges. Take a look at her website and examine the kinds of roles she typically performs. She's essentially a "character actress" who specializes in "bad girl," Satanic/supernatural/"witchy" types, plus some dance and stunt work. This kind of performance is right in line with her other work. She had even listed the "Voodoo Doll" part on her website CV and IMDB, naming the role as "Vudu Mind Player," until the reference mysteriously vanished from both sites sometime late last year.
In the intro to the "Trick of the Mind" series, Derren Brown said no actors or stooges were used, yet a professional union actor was obviously used in at least one segment. Derren Brown also said in his blog entry linked above that everything he says in his shows is in fact true, which we also know to be demonstrably false. So Derren explicitly lied at least twice when discussing his TV perfomances. If he'd lie about those things, it stands to reason he lies about other things pertaining to his show (like when he says he never uses stooges ).
You guys can blather on about irrelevant details, ruminate till the cows come home about the possible interpretations of the word "stooge," and hand-wave or deny the facts of the matter, but I've already wasted enough of my life bickering over this silly, trifling issue.
You guys can go ahead and continue nitpicking about semantics all you want, and ruminate till the cows come home about the breadth of possible interpretations of the word "stooge," but I've already wasted enough of my life bickering over this silly, trifling issue.
Derren Brown has made 52 programmes. Lets take a ballpark guess and say that there are six tricks in each episode. Thats 312 participants. That includes obvious actors like Stephen Fry and Simon Pegg.
So out of the possible 312 participants on Brown's television performances: you have found one who also happens to be an actor as well. Despite your lengthy posts with bold, underlining and colours this is entirely within the scope of probability. If I was to gather 312 people together in the same room it is entirely probable that one of them will be an actor.
You haven't even proved that Magda is a member of equity at the time of filming. (she has an equity number, but I can't find a listing on the equity website. http://www.equity.org.uk/directory-of-members/list/?membername=Magda+Rodriguez&x=48&y=17) You can't even prove she got paid for being on Brown's show. The entirety of your evidence is speculation. It is hard to even begin to tell you how wrong you are.
We are not nitpicking. We are stating the obvious. You've got nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. After two threads and over fifty pages I think its time to stop dancing around the point.
The latest zinger you've come up with is that she is a "character actress": as if she were any other sort of actress it would make a difference. Seriously, this is bordering on the comical. How many of the other participants in Brown's shows were character actors John? How many of the hundreds of participants have played Satanic/supernatural/"witchy" types?
Tell me: how many of the other 311 performances on Brown's show were actors and paid scale? Why are you hinging so much on this particular actress when there are so many other people who have appeared on the show who have not been proven to be actors?
I'm through with all this nitpicky nonsense. I already stated I don't have conclusive, material evidence (like a contract or script) that would convince somebody whose mind is already made up.
You know what that disclaimer means so now whose nitpicking? No actors=not pretending to be/do something/prepped /hired etc. As you cannot prove any of thi soccured then she wasnt "acting"
As I said, it seems to me by far the most reasonable explanation, in that it accounts for all the known facts and doesn't involve extraordinary claims like "hypnotic mind control," or goofy semantic evasiveness to weaken the definition of the word "stooge."
As Ive said over and over He has a no actors stooge disclaimer,no one has yet been able to disprove that.Magda's effect was rather tame in grand scheme of what Derren has made people do since. So every participant must be a stooge!
As for those of you arguing that the fact that she's an actress is a red herring and doesn't mean she was paid, you guys obviously know very little about show business. The UK Actors Union (called "Equity") operates in a very similar fashion to the SAG here in the US, in that all union jobs in professional theatre/screen arts are regulated by contract according to union rules. You'll see that ITV ("Channel 4") is listed in Equity's list of union employers. So in case you thought otherwise, it's not like a trained, accomplished, card-carrying professional actress would just show up at a TV studio along with a bunch of audience members and "extras" in order to get on a TV show. Professional actors in the Equity union don't perform on nationally broadcast television programs without being specifically hired on contract, and paid at least "scale" wages.
A prominent role like the one Magda Rodriguez performed in that "Voodoo Doll" segment (she's basically the star of the piece) would in the USA have paid very highly, though I understand things are quite different in the UK and actors don't usually get paid residuals based on the popularity or profitability of the piece. But the fact that she's a professional union actress appearing in a national TV show means that she was hired and paid for her work.
Why ,when sh ewasnt acting should her occupation be revealed?
Simon Pegg and Stephen Fry also did not perform theatrical roles wherein real acting was required, like a zombie-like "hypnotic trance" with creepy choking sounds while a rope was being wound around a voodoo doll.
WTF? Acting? Yes give her an oscar! Like the guy who cliamed he couldnt see Derren Brown as he was invisible.I guess he was acting. The guy who palyed a zombie game and thought he was inside it.He was likely acting too.
I could go on.
[quote[The fact that Derren Brown employed a professional actress..
Proof ?
..to act like she was being paralyzed and choked by a voodoo doll (spoiler alert: she wasn't really being paralyzed and choked... that's why it's called an act) is plenty evidence enough for me to conclude that he uses stooges.
See my above paragraph.By your standards every participant in his shows are actors.
Take a look at her website and examine the kinds of roles she typically performs. She's essentially a "character actress" who specializes in "bad girl," Satanic/supernatural/"witchy" types, plus some dance and stunt work. This kind of performance is right in line with her other work. She had even listed the "Voodoo Doll" part on her website CV and IMDB, naming the role as "Vudu Mind Player," until the reference mysteriously vanished from both sites sometime late last year.
The ref vanished likely as she was misrepresenting.
In the intro to the "Trick of the Mind" series, Derren Brown said no actors or stooges were used, yet a professional union actor was obviously used in at least one segment.
Derren Brown also said in his blog entry linked above that everything he says in his shows is in fact true, which we also know to be demonstrably false. So Derren explicitly lied at least twice when discussing his TV perfomances. If he'd lie about those things, it stands to reason he lies about other things pertaining to his show (like when he says he never uses stooges ).
You guys can blather on about irrelevant details, ruminate till the cows come home about the possible interpretations of the word "stooge," and hand-wave or deny the facts of the matter, but I've already wasted enough of my life bickering over this silly, trifling issue.
I'm through with all this nitpicky nonsense. I already stated I don't have conclusive, material evidence (like a contract or script) that would convince somebody whose mind is already made up. But the circumstantial evidence is strongly indicative that Magda Rodriguez was paid to act a part.
No. It isn't. We've explained why. You don't want to hear because... are you ready? Sit down, this might come as a shock...
YOUR MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP. You've already decided that Derren Brown uses stooges, so you've gone looking for proof. The best you've been able to find is that one of the people who have appeared on his shows turned out to be an actress. I'm amazed you can still think of yourself as a skeptic while simultaneously seeing no problem with regarding proof of your claims as "nitpicky nonsense." And let's keep in mind: it's YOUR claim. We didn't come to you saying "Let us tell you how Derren Brown performs his tricks." You made a claim you couldn't back up, and now you're running away because the nasty skeptics won't accept your claim without proof. Boo hoo.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).