Derren Brown's screaming stooges

I've yet to hear a more plausible explanation. Any of you guys got one?

Anything is more plausible than your explanation. "I dont know how its done so it must be actress/stooge"
Twice.

My explanation is what you see/hear isnt neccesarily what Magda experienced.There is an element of magic /misdirection to it.
"Stooge"! LMAO. Ah layman are great.:p
 
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."


This probably falls under your definition of "semantic evasiveness," but I told you what the reason for an actress to happen to be selected as the "voodo girl" likely was, without having to yell (the traditional definition of) "stooge!"

I went back to the video with the talk by David Britland, who, although he was speaking about another mentalism show, has served as a consultant on many of Derren's shows. Here's what was said (I don't think I'm revealing any real magic secrets here, so hopefully won't get in trouble with the mods):

Q: Was the show scripted, or were these real experiments?

A: No, T.A.'s [the performer's] part was scripted, and no stooges in the audience but we did pre-select people. So for instance the girl that goes under sort of hypnosis. We invited people to the show that were from the local theater group, and theater people are probably more likely to be good at pretending to be hypnotized than anybody else.


http://essentialmagicconference.com/
 
Last edited:
Anything is more plausible than your explanation. "I dont know how its done so it must be actress/stooge"


That's not my explanation. I never said that. I presented evidence that he used an actress. I researched the facts and in the process uncovered even more evidence that supports the facts that Derren Brown surreptitiously employed a professional actress for a particular performance, and then lied about it.

The fact that you're using this strawman argument indicates you cannot refute my actual explanation fairly, or provide a plausible alternate explanation.


My explanation is what you see/hear isnt neccesarily what Magda experienced.There is an element of magic /misdirection to it.


That's not even an explanation. "Magic" is not an explanation. "Some element of misdirection" is so vague as to be meaningless, and you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back up any of it.

On the contrary, I have lots of observable, verifiable facts supporting my position that this professional actor was employed for a central performance in Derren Brown's show, despite the fact he claims he did not use any actors.

Besides that lie, Derren also claims he always tells the truth in his shows, and that too has been shown to be a lie. So we have conclusive evidence that he lies about his act. Since he's been known to lie about other aspects of his act, why should we take him at his word that he does not use stooges? We know other mentalists use them.

This corny "hypnosis" schtick Derren Brown has been relying on lately is certainly the kind of fare that would traditionally rely on stooges, "instant stooging" and hand-picked participants prejudged to be willing "play-along" accomplices. When people show up to a TV show expecting to get on TV, knowing full well that they won't make the cut unless they play along, are they not stooges? I'd say it's a pretty fine line there. And then we have evidence that he actually employed a card-carrying member of the actors union to play-act like a voodoo doll was choking her. If you really think that using actors without the audience's knowledge isn't unfair, then it seems that you disingenuously object to the word "stooge" but not the actual practice.

I think "stooges" is by far the most plausible explanation for some of those tricks.

Until you can manage to come up with an actual explanation and scrape together some evidence to back it up, I'm resting my case here.
 
Last edited:
No. It means that you don't have a person who is briefed on what to do to make the trick work. In the example you keep harping on about, you need to prove that the person involved was in on the trick, not just that she was an actor. Do you understand?

This.

Unless you can provide some evidence that the actress was primed in advance, then really, you're just moaning about someone's profession.
 
Identifying her as an actress would have destroyed the illusion, so that's why he didn't do it. Keeping that a secret from the audience while she obviously had a full understanding of how to pull off the act is, in my opinion, essentially the same thing as using a stooge. To deny it is really splitting hairs over the technical definition of a "stooge."

I'm afraid it simply means that you don't know what the word 'stooge' means.
 
She's a professional actress in the British Actor's Union, and she appeared on his TV show. You do the math.

If we do the same maths that you do, but ommit your immense, glaring, logical error, we dion't end up with the same answer. Just so you know.
 
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?

You've obviously got nothing.





Evidence?

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.





Evidence. The proper term is evidence, not "proof."

The evidence behind the facts I presented has already been posted in the other thread about The Experiments.

You keep screaming the word 'evidence' when you yourself have none.

Come on, show me a payslip or a script or a contract or an interview with the actress concerned. Anything that doesn't rely on you simply making stuff up would be good.
 
That's not my explanation. I never said that. I presented evidence that he used an actress. I researched the facts and in the process uncovered even more evidence that supports the facts that Derren Brown surreptitiously employed a professional actress for a particular performance, and then lied about it.
The ONLY evidence is taht she IS aan actress. So no matter how you like to play Columbo you havent researched anything. You have stated Derren employed here stated as s fact,Ive yet to see any proof of that.



That's not even an explanation. "Magic" is not an explanation. "Some element of misdirection" is so vague as to be meaningless, and you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back up any of it.
My evidence iwould be an argument from authority so whats the point?

On the contrary, I have lots of observable, verifiable facts supporting my position that this professional actor was employed for a central performance in Derren Brown's show, despite the fact he claims he did not use any actors.
BS. You know she is an actress and that's it.Just like we all do.The rest is you clutching at straws,

Besides that lie, Derren also claims he always tells the truth in his shows, and that too has been shown to be a lie.
.So we have conclusive evidence that he lies about his act.
Asked you once for proof of this haven't seen it forthcoming
This corny "hypnosis" schtick Derren Brown has been relying on lately is certainly the kind of fare that would traditionally rely on stooges, "instant stooging" and hand-picked participants prejudged to be willing "play-along" accomplices. When people show up to a TV show expecting to get on TV, knowing full well that they won't make the cut unless they play along, are they not stooges? I'd say it's a pretty fine line there. And then we have evidence that he actually employed a card-carrying member of the actors union to play-act like a voodoo doll was choking her. If you really think that using actors without the audience's knowledge isn't unfair, then it seems that you disingenuously object to the word "stooge" but not the actual practice.
Proof for bolded part.Again.

I think "stooges" is by far the most plausible explanation for some of those tricks.
Thats is the crux of your arguement.Nothing more.

Until you can manage to come up with an actual explanation and scrape together some evidence to back it up, I'm resting my case here.

Until you can come up with some proof you do well to rest your case.
 
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.

Hooray! Now we can use actual logic.

(p.s. - I know you're still reading, you can tell me: Is it just jealousy?)
 
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 :eek:).

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.

Could you provide some proof - a script, a contract, a paycheque?

could you even provide some prooof that out of work actord don't do this sort of thing for no money? I've known lots of out of work actors turn up for anything they think might get their face on telly, paid or not.

Again, all we have is argument from incredulity. Over and over and over...
 
I've yet to hear a more plausible explanation. Any of you guys got one?

This is textbook incredulity right here.

I cannot think of how else it might be done, therefore my explanation is the only valid one.

Can't you see the flaw with that?
 
Can we all at least agree that there is a difference between "volunteer used for a trick happens to work as an actress but is not there in her role as an actress and responds as any other participant would" and "volunteer used for a trick is an actress selected to play the role of participant and is deliberately trying to make the trick look good"?
 
Can we all at least agree that there is a difference between "volunteer used for a trick happens to work as an actress but is not there in her role as an actress and responds as any other participant would" and "volunteer used for a trick is an actress selected to play the role of participant and is deliberately trying to make the trick look good"?

I'll bet you a beer we can't.
 

Back
Top Bottom