Derren Brown's screaming stooges

[John Albert]

How is "it was a straight-up magic trick" not supported by evidence?

"It's magic" is not even an explanation. It's a cop-out.

 

[John Albert]

Yet again, you're either not comprehending or not acknowledging the difference between "evidence" and "proof."

And I haven't even seen any plausible alternate explanations that are supported by the evidence.

Captain Non Sequitur strikes again!

That's not a non-sequitur. It's a reply to your own nonsensical post:

You would need to prove it's more likely than all other possible explanations. Could you really not figure that out?

Such a thing is not even possible, and anyway, nobody else has even posited a single alternate plausible explanation for consideration.

 

[John Albert]

Looks like im back on ignore again

If you can't argue the point put poster on ignore.Yep that works.

The reason you're being ignored is because you keep on rehashing the same questions and issues that have already been dealt with over and over again, and then you call me a liar because I have neither the time nor the inclination to keep re-presenting the same evidence over and over and over again on every new page, just because you demand it. Arguments by assertion are dishonest.

You also insist on misrepresenting my arguments and throwing the twisted versions back at me to respond to. I'm tired of constantly re-explaining myself because you refuse to be honest.

Besides that, you've never presented any evidence at all to back up any of your own claims, and you persist with these dishonest tactics instead of responding to any of my actual points.

 

[John Albert]

I think that the difference between (actually occurring) hypnotism and people 'just playing along' is rather thin. So I find the DB shows that are heavily based on hypnotism to be rather boring.

I'm not saying it's exactly the same. For instance, it is credible to me that someone with a deep fear of flying could, with the use of hypnotism, be seen flying without any problems. That's mildly interesting but again, even if this person is not purely 'playing along', he is still doing something that he wants to do. I think it's impossible to hypnotise anyone to do something that they don't want to do, and so I think it doesn't really make for good entertainment except when what is being done is interesting in its own right, never mind the hypnotism.

Exactly. That's why I am of the opinion that Derren Brown's show "jumped the shark" when he began relying on this lazy "reality show" tripe disguised as "hypnosis" instead of performing good magic.

It seems to me that for some people in this thread, any level of people 'just playing along' would equal using stooges. But for other people, including me, it's not. A stooge is not necessarily paid, but it is someone who has been informed beforehand what he or she is supposed to do and is acting on a prepared script.

I think it seems likely that in some cases his subjects have been so prepared, if not by Derren Brown himself then by somebody else involved with the production. At the very least, it seems obvious that in some of these performances the "subjects" have full knowledge that they're taking part in a television production, whereas the TV-viewing audience is not informed of that fact. In the context of TV magic, that to me is close enough to the definition of a "stooge" in the level of dishonesty, even if it does not fit the generally-accepted industry definition.

A so-called 'instant stooge' is not a stooge.

Again, if that's your position, then I accept that. I'm not a professional magician, so my personal interpretation of the lingo might not be 100% consistent with the generally-accepted industry definition.

On the other hand, if one publicly decries the use of stooges as "artistically repugnant," then it's extremely hypocritical to do something equally "repugnant" in principle, but disingenuously weasel out of the designation of "stooge" on a technicality.

I'm pretty sure there's been some 'instant stooges' in DB's shows. There's really no way for him to avoid that though. How could he know whether someone realises where the trick is heading and is playing along, or just behaving like DB is trying to nudge that person, without realising the larger plot? I find it plausible that DB never did a show which was dependent on someone becoming an 'instant stooge' though.

Well, I'd agree that he doesn't rely on any single instant stooge's performance, only inasmuch as he can always re-perform the exact same trick with a different "subject" as many times as necessary to get the take, and then the production company can edit out all the "bad performances" for the final cut.

Again, I don't personally find that stuff very entertaining, unless there's something more to it, but no I don't believe DB uses stooges in the common definition of that word.

I agree that this new material is boring as hell, and I get the same general feeling from watching it as I do from typical American "woo-woo" reality shows.

But as for "stooges," I'd say that's a fine line, and some of his stuff certainly appears to overstep it. As I said, I'd gladly admit I'm wrong if somebody would present a plausible alternate explanation. Unfortunately, whenever I bring it up, people respond with contempt and derision without even considering a discussion.

 

[Azrael 5]

A plausible explanation for voodoo doll:

We dont see the whole thing,its edited. She is primed via hypnotic suggestion or such(im no expert but it fits)and i sput into a situation where she is deeply suggestible.She is involved emotionally due to her ring being (she thinks)place into the voodoo doll,and some dual reality is incorporated.Part of what we think is happening one way isnt. Along with some sleight of hand and a particualr magic prop we arrive at the conclusion.

Not saying 100% it's the method but it 's more sensible than "stooges". Considering Derren Brown states he doesn't use them. (please dont bore me with the "lied about using an actress Ive explained it).
Dont forget John Albert this isnt the first cry of stooge of yours regarding DB, the other one has even flimsier proof than voodoo doll.

Still wish to hear where Derren has lied previously.

 

[Azrael 5]

The reason you're being ignored is because you keep on rehashing the same questions and issues that have already been dealt with over and over again, and then you call me a liar because I have neither the time nor the inclination to keep re-presenting the same evidence over and over and over again on every new page, just because you demand it. Arguments by assertion are dishonest.

You also insist on misrepresenting my arguments and throwing the twisted versions back at me to respond to. I'm tired of constantly re-explaining myself because you refuse to be honest.

Besides that, you've never presented any evidence at all to back up any of your own claims, and you persist with these dishonest tactics instead of responding to any of my actual points.

Man I could fill a page here with your lies or "misrepresentations" from other thread,points you refused to answer ,your ever changing position etc.
How you have the gall to post some flimsy conspiracy theory as fact,thinking its true if no-one offers better!

 

[Merko]

I haven't read all the thread but the fact is, this is what many of DB's shows, especially the later ones, would have you believe. For example, the guy who was 'hypnotised' into committing murder at the country house, and the one who was similarly 'hypnotised' into 'shooting' Stephen Fry in front of a full theatre of people (who didn't seem to care, but that's beside the point).

Of course he would have you believe that he's using 'magical' hypnosis. The point of magic is to make the audience think you can do the impossible! I see no difference between this and a magician saying he's cutting somebody in half (even when he's actually cheating).

On the other hand, DB's declaration that he's not using actors or stooges is edited so as to appear to be outside of the show so to speak. So if he makes us believe that he's reading minds or hypnotising people to commit murder that's fine with me, as long as those claims are made (or implied) as part of the performance.

I haven't watched much of this recent material, but I remember from one early show where he brought in some guys working for a PR firm to come up with an advertisement for a taxidermy shop. After they've revealed their ad proposal, DB reveals a stunning prediction of what it would look like. He then implies that he made them come up with their proposal by subtly manipulating their thoughts using subliminal cues seen in the taxi on the way to the session etc. Which is almost certainly complete nonsense, because I'm sure in reality this was just a common magic trick where he produced his 'prediction' after the fact.

But I don't have a problem with DB making it look like some subliminal thing because that was part of the act. In fact I appreciate this sort of 'trickery on top of trickery'. Magic is about fooling people for entertainment and that's exactly what he did.

 

[Merko]

Exactly. That's why I am of the opinion that Derren Brown's show "jumped the shark" when he began relying on this lazy "reality show" tripe disguised as "hypnosis" instead of performing good magic.

Well if you don't think it's amusing, don't watch it. I don't. And give it bad reviews or whatever. But the criticism in this thread goes quite a bit further than that I would say.

I think it seems likely that in some cases his subjects have been so prepared, if not by Derren Brown himself then by somebody else involved with the production. At the very least, it seems obvious that in some of these performances the "subjects" have full knowledge that they're taking part in a television production, whereas the TV-viewing audience is not informed of that fact.

I disagree about that. The TV-viewing audience is informed of that fact because it's blindingly obvious that there are cameras on the set. If you assume that these cameras have been cleverly hidden from the participants, then I'm sorry, but you've been fooled in a perfectly legitimate way. Moreover, everyone knows that DB is making TV shows and that he's doing them with volunteers that he's recruited so if you think he somehow found people who are unaware of that and believe he's just doing these elaborate stunts as part of some weird happening, you're not really using your critical thinking skills.

On the other hand, if one publicly decries the use of stooges as "artistically repugnant," then it's extremely hypocritical to do something equally "repugnant" in principle, but disingenuously weasel out of the designation of "stooge" on a technicality.

I disagree that it's a technicality, and so do many other reasonable people in this thread and otherwise. Again, you're free to believe that this aspect of DB's shows aren't very impressive (and I would agree) but I don't see anything dishonest about this.

Well, I'd agree that he doesn't rely on any single instant stooge's performance, only inasmuch as he can always re-perform the exact same trick with a different "subject" as many times as necessary to get the take, and then the production company can edit out all the "bad performances" for the final cut.

I agree about that. I expect this to be the case almost always when there's this type of pre-recorded TV magic. On the other hand, unlike a simple and short street magic trick they are not going to shoot an elaborate setup 30 times just to get a highly unlikely reaction from a participant. So getting people to act according to the plan is still something that requires a lot of skill I would say, it's just not something that impresses me a whole lot unless there's something more to it.

But as for "stooges," I'd say that's a fine line, and some of his stuff certainly appears to overstep it. As I said, I'd gladly admit I'm wrong if somebody would present a plausible alternate explanation. Unfortunately, whenever I bring it up, people respond with contempt and derision without even considering a discussion.

Well I think some of the derision comes from the certitude which some people express on the subject (see the subject of this thread) as well as the flimsy evidence presented (what are the odds that not even one of the many participants in DB's shows would happen to be an actor?). If you want to discuss the possibility of DB using stooges then that's fine, but when some people scream about how it's obvious and the only explanation and everyone who doesn't agree must be stupid, then derision is in order. Sorry if you have not been expressing such opinions and maybe some of the derision spilled over on you because you appeared to side with such wild claims.

 

[beren]

"It's magic" is not even an explanation. It's a cop-out.

How so?
An admitted magician used magic to perform an illusion.

ANY other explanation would need convincing proof.

 

[John Albert]

I disagree about that. The TV-viewing audience is informed of that fact because it's blindingly obvious that there are cameras on the set. If you assume that these cameras have been cleverly hidden from the participants, then I'm sorry, but you've been fooled in a perfectly legitimate way. Moreover, everyone knows that DB is making TV shows and that he's doing them with volunteers that he's recruited so if you think he somehow found people who are unaware of that and believe he's just doing these elaborate stunts as part of some weird happening, you're not really using your critical thinking skills.

Yet we see people making that exact argument to support the belief that the cameras are all hidden and Derren Brown is actually hypnotizing people on the street to hand over their wallets and valuables, store clerks to accept blank paper in lieu of actual cash, and racetrack betting agents to pay out money on losing tickets (among other things).

As far as I'm concerned, hiding the fact that these people know they're doing these things for a TV show is just as cheap as employing stooges.

I disagree that it's a technicality, and so do many other reasonable people in this thread and otherwise. Again, you're free to believe that this aspect of DB's shows aren't very impressive (and I would agree) but I don't see anything dishonest about this.

Well then that's where we disagree. The participants know they're being filmed, and they're dong what they're expected to do under the circumstances of a TV shoot, not what they'd be expected to do in a real-life situation. Presenting staged situations on TV as if they're occurring for real on a hidden "candid-camera" setting is every bit as disingenuous as using stooges in my opinion.

And deliberately employing a trained, union actress for a role on a nationally-televised program and then denying that actors are used is flat-out lying, no two ways about it.

I agree about that. I expect this to be the case almost always when there's this type of pre-recorded TV magic. On the other hand, unlike a simple and short street magic trick they are not going to shoot an elaborate setup 30 times just to get a highly unlikely reaction from a participant. So getting people to act according to the plan is still something that requires a lot of skill I would say, it's just not something that impresses me a whole lot unless there's something more to it.

But when the participants know full well that they're doing it for a TV show, that goes a long way toward closing that gap of skill. There's nothing at all extraordinary about what DB is doing. That's what makes it so very boring and deceptive.

Well I think some of the derision comes from the certitude which some people express on the subject (see the subject of this thread)

Yeah, it's ultimately a trivial issue that some people blow way out of proportion, and some inexplicably abandon all rationality over.

(what are the odds that not even one of the many participants in DB's shows would happen to be an actor?).

If he's honestly making that claim, then it ought to be 100%.

I certainly feel it's far more likely that Derren Brown simply told a lie, rather than believe this Magda Rodriguez inexplicably hid the fact that she's a professional actress and went onto the show incognito, thereby waiving her rights to a fair contract in violation of the actors union rules.

 

[John Albert]

How so?
An admitted magician used magic to perform an illusion.

ANY other explanation would need convincing proof.

What part of "it's a cop-out" don't you understand?

Using "it's magic" as an explanation is like Isaac Newton deigning to explain his Law of Gravity by asserting "it's physics."

"Stooges" is one technique included in the common repertoire of magicians, so asserting "it's magic done by a magician" logically puts you right back to square one.

 

[baron]

Of course he would have you believe that he's using 'magical' hypnosis. The point of magic is to make the audience think you can do the impossible! I see no difference between this and a magician saying he's cutting somebody in half (even when he's actually cheating).

On the other hand, DB's declaration that he's not using actors or stooges is edited so as to appear to be outside of the show so to speak. So if he makes us believe that he's reading minds or hypnotising people to commit murder that's fine with me, as long as those claims are made (or implied) as part of the performance.

I haven't watched much of this recent material, but I remember from one early show where he brought in some guys working for a PR firm to come up with an advertisement for a taxidermy shop. After they've revealed their ad proposal, DB reveals a stunning prediction of what it would look like. He then implies that he made them come up with their proposal by subtly manipulating their thoughts using subliminal cues seen in the taxi on the way to the session etc. Which is almost certainly complete nonsense, because I'm sure in reality this was just a common magic trick where he produced his 'prediction' after the fact.

But I don't have a problem with DB making it look like some subliminal thing because that was part of the act. In fact I appreciate this sort of 'trickery on top of trickery'. Magic is about fooling people for entertainment and that's exactly what he did.

If we were talking about a single show then I'd be tempted to agree. But being that we're not, I see a big diffference between DB's position and that of a standard, stage magician.

A stage magician performs a trick and entertains, that's as far as it goes. We take his proclamation of magic as all part of the act and a method to enhance the experience. We're not asked to genuinely believe that magic is taking place and nobody actually does. It's a bit of fun and then we go home, wondering how the magician actually did do that trick.

DB is different in one significant way. He has set himself up as a sceptic and opponent of woo. He has done many shows where he 'exposes' the antics of psychics, faith healers and the like ostensibly through use of psychology and psychological tricks. Which is great, these frauds need exposing, but the point is that if DB is simply using the same tricks as the frauds he is debunking then what's the point? If John Edwards gives a reading by using some blatant trickery then why would we accept DB producing a reading using similarly devious methods as any sort of rebuttal? And not only is it pointless, it's damaging, because it lays sceptics open to the criticism of, 'Is that all you've got?'

I think a lot of clever, sceptical people have been misled by DB's anti-woo stance into swallowing the rest of his spiel. In reality his claims, as taken at face value, are just as absurd as the woo-woo claims of any faith healer or tarot card reader (moral implications aside). And I say 'at face value' because the best bit of all is that DB tells you all this at the beginning of every show. He tells you that he uses misdirection and psychology, except what he doesn't tell you is that the psychology is used on you, the viewer, and not those people who get up on his stage. When you think about it you have to admit, it's a brilliant marketing ploy.

 

[beren]

What part of "it's a cop-out" don't you understand?

Using "it's magic" as an explanation is like Isaac Newton deigning to explain his Law of Gravity by asserting "it's physics."

"Stooges" is one technique included in the common repertoire of magicians, so asserting "it's magic done by a magician" logically puts you right back to square one.

If you are looking for a detailed explanation off the magic then you are, at best, failing to argue in good faith since you are well aware that such discussions ate boy showed on this board.


You are argument for stooges is weak and unsupported by enough evidence to give out any weight.

Your entire argument is an appeal to ignorance. When called on it you resort to no true Scotsman attacks. You mask this by pointing out the supposed fallacies of others in add hominens.



"i can only think of any otherway to do this trick, so it muddy be my first thought unless you prove otherwise" is not a valid argument. Your only pierce of evidence its, at best, debatable.

You constantly berate others but cry when they fight back.


An illusionist used an illusion to fool you. You were fooled.

 

[Azrael 5]

John Albert

And deliberately employing a trained, union actress for a role on a nationally-televised program and then denying that actors are used is flat-out lying, no two ways about it.

Bolding mine.
Again show the members of this thread your proof. You can't.Your full of it.Come on dude man up.
In fact ill just re-write your quote in fancy brackets:

And [I think ]deliberately employing a trained, union actress for a role on a nationally-televised program and then denying that actors are used is flat-out lying, no two ways about it.[for which I have no proof other than the girl is an actress. I have basically got nothing.]

 

[John Albert]

If you are looking for a detailed explanation off the magic then you are, at best, failing to argue in good faith since you are well aware that such discussions ate boy showed on this board.

"ate boy showed"?

I'm not asserting any claim as an evidenced fact. I'm saying that given the circumstances it appears most likely that he uses stooges or other similarly "cheating" methods despite his haughty posturing to the contrary.

I'm not asking for anyone to reveal the methods to the tricks. I'm asking for alternate plausible explanations that meet the known and observable evidence. One extremely plausible "theory" behind DB's "Lottery Trick" has already been posted numerous times on these forums, without any negative repercussions whatsoever. The rules do not forbid such speculation, only insider knowledge of specific tricks, so hiding behind the "no revealing of tricks" rule is a lame cop-out.

You are argument for stooges is weak and unsupported by enough evidence to give out any weight.

Again, I have not stated that I know for certain that he uses stooges. I've merely offered facts and details that seem to indicate he has used them despite his denials.

Your entire argument is an appeal to ignorance. When called on it you resort to no true Scotsman attacks.

"No True Scotsman attacks"? What does that even mean?

You mask this by pointing out the supposed fallacies of others in add hominens.

Pointing out fallacies in others' reasoning is not "add hominens," or even ad hominems.

Perhaps you mean to accuse me of making a "fallacy fallacy," but that's not really correct either because I haven't argued that other peoples' fallacies stand as proof that Derren Brown uses stooges.

All I have said is that stooges remains on the table as a plausible explanation as far as I'm concerned, and we cannot really trust Derren Brown when he denies it because he's been shown to lie about his act.

"i can only think of any otherway to do this trick, so it muddy be my first thought unless you prove otherwise" is not a valid argument. Your only pierce of evidence its, at best, debatable.

Again, you're throwing me with your absurd spelling and grammar, but it appears to me that you haven't been following the conversation very closely. There are in fact several pieces of evidence, not just one.

You constantly berate others but cry when they fight back.

Um, no. I'm not berating anyone. I'm just pointing out where they've been wrong in their arguments.

An illusionist used an illusion to fool you. You were fooled.

Maybe not so much as you think. Arrogant ad hominems do not constitute a valid argument.

 

[Merko]

Yet we see people making that exact argument to support the belief that the cameras are all hidden and Derren Brown is actually hypnotizing people on the street to hand over their wallets and valuables, store clerks to accept blank paper in lieu of actual cash, and racetrack betting agents to pay out money on losing tickets (among other things).

As far as I'm concerned, hiding the fact that these people know they're doing these things for a TV show is just as cheap as employing stooges.

Sorry, I don't get you here. Anytime a magician does a trick, there will be some gullible people thinking they're actually using real magic. In DB's case, I'd agree that people being truly fooled are often more sophisticated than for the average magician. So for example, the nonsense about the 'subliminal advertising' method was actually retold as fact by a highly educated colleague of mine with a PhD and I would say generally good critical thinking skills. You might think this is 'dishonest' or 'disingenuous' but I would disagree. I think it just shows that DB is more sophisticated than most magicians, thereby being able to genuinely fool people who would not be fooled by your average magician.

Again, magic is about fooling people. If someone is successful at that, to me that means they are skilled magicians. That is not to say there are not ethical standards, for example it would be highly unethical to fool people into believing things that are materially detrimental, for example by making people believe that it's possible to communicate with the dead or similar.

But giving people a false idea of how a show was produced? Sorry, that's not unethical. It may or may not be interesting, but if you're fooling people who would not normally be easily fooled then that shows you're skilled in your art, nothing else.

And deliberately employing a trained, union actress for a role on a nationally-televised program and then denying that actors are used is flat-out lying, no two ways about it.

I think that you are being disingenuous here by using the word 'employing'. Yes, I know that can mean 'making use of' rather than actually paying someone a salary, but you're certainly hinting in a direction which is totally unproven.

That's what makes it so very boring and deceptive.

I agree but I'm sorry, I can't fault a magician for being deceptive. How could anyone be a magician without being deceptive?

I certainly feel it's far more likely that Derren Brown simply told a lie, rather than believe this Magda Rodriguez inexplicably hid the fact that she's a professional actress and went onto the show incognito, thereby waiving her rights to a fair contract in violation of the actors union rules.

Sorry, I don't know the details of the actors union rules, but it seems very unlikely to me that they would forbid members to volunteer in magic shows. Acting is a profession. Actors like all people have spare time. They just usually have more of it and certainly much more unevenly distributed. You're assuming that DB would somehow screen out actors from participating as volunteers. Why would or should he do that? Are there any other occupations you feel should not be allowed to participate?

There is simply nothing suspicious about an unknown actress ending up as a participant in a magic trick.

 

[John Albert]

Again show the members of this thread your proof. You can't.Your full of it.Come on dude man up.
In fact ill just re-write your quote in fancy brackets:

He said he didn't use any actors. He used an actor.

For the evidence, go back a few pages to where I posted the relevant video and web page.

That's one example of him lying.

For numerous others, go look back through this thread.

I'm not jumping through hoops to dig up and re-post every bit of evidence that anyone ever presented, every time you request it.

 

[beren]

My apologies for typographical errors. I am posing from my phone forgot to proof read.

 

[Merko]

If we were talking about a single show then I'd be tempted to agree. But being that we're not, I see a big diffference between DB's position and that of a standard, stage magician.

But he isn't a standard stage magician. In this context, he's not a stage magician but a TV magician. DB may have his own position on TV magic but he seems to be doing pretty well with it I would say. And this is anyway a different subject than whether or not he ever used stooges.

DB is different in one significant way. He has set himself up as a sceptic and opponent of woo. He has done many shows where he 'exposes' the antics of psychics, faith healers and the like ostensibly through use of psychology and psychological tricks. Which is great, these frauds need exposing, but the point is that if DB is simply using the same tricks as the frauds he is debunking then what's the point? If John Edwards gives a reading by using some blatant trickery then why would we accept DB producing a reading using similarly devious methods as any sort of rebuttal? And not only is it pointless, it's damaging, because it lays sceptics open to the criticism of, 'Is that all you've got?'

I think that DB has sometimes crossed the line or at least come close to it. For example, it appeared for a while that he was endorsing NLP which is something that dishonest people are actually peddling as the real deal to people who don't know better. But I believe DB has acknowledged criticism in the past and steered away from such things.

I think that 'the point' of DB is to entertain and I think that's a good thing and worthwhile in itself. But within the field of skepticism I believe 'the point' of magicians is not just to expose frauds (which you agree DB has done) but also to show people that they can be fooled, including people who are intelligent and who employ critical thinking. Maybe we disagree because you feel that this is not valid if the spectator leaves the show with incorrect ideas of exactly how he or she was fooled. I don't think that's the case and I'm willing to forgive DB if some people never realise how duped they have been, because it surely shows many other people that if a self-confessed trickster like DB can achieve an effect, then so can people who are making money by claiming similar effects to be the real deal.

Someone may think she's a skeptic because she thinks she can figure out how the tricksters do their tricks and she would not be fooled. But she would be a poor skeptic. To become a better skeptic, she'd be helped by a magician showing her that in fact she can also be fooled.

I think a lot of clever, sceptical people have been misled by DB's anti-woo stance into swallowing the rest of his spiel. In reality his claims, as taken at face value, are just as absurd as the woo-woo claims of any faith healer or tarot card reader (moral implications aside). And I say 'at face value' because the best bit of all is that DB tells you all this at the beginning of every show. He tells you that he uses misdirection and psychology, except what he doesn't tell you is that the psychology is used on you, the viewer, and not those people who get up on his stage. When you think about it you have to admit, it's a brilliant marketing ploy.

I think it's also brilliant magic and brilliant skepticism. The absurdity of the claims don't make them immoral. That line depends on the consequences of the false beliefs the magician creates. DB has I believe crossed the line a few times but overall I think he's a great positive for skepticism.

As a comparison, stage magicians typically don't reveal their tricks. The audience very often walks away from the performance thinking they have an idea of how the trick was done, which is often very far from the truth (such as believing some extremely complicated technology must have been developed). We don't blame these magicians because the false beliefs created are mostly harmless. DB in my mind is testing the limits a bit more but that also makes him more interesting, although some of the recent shows have not been so interesting in their own right I would say, but that's a different matter.

 

[Merko]

He said he didn't use any actors. He used an actor.

Now you're being disingenuous again. When he says he doesn't 'use any actors', anyone who can comprehend the English language understands that this means that no one who is presented in the show as a layperson is secretly performing as an actor. It does not exclude employing actors who are being presented in the show as being DB's assistants. It doesn't exclude having random people as volunteers who randomly happen to be actors in their professional life.