He used Simon Pegg as well.
The man must have paid him too!!!
I have no reason to doubt that Pegg was paid for his appearance. Why wouldn't he be? Objective Productions is a big TV production company, not a community theater charity case. Why should Simon Pegg, a professional actor and movie star, make an appearance on national TV for free?
But that's not even the issue here. I've already already explained the differences between the appearance of Magda Rodriguez on one of Derren Brown's shows, and the appearances of Simon Pegg and Stephen Fry on other shows of DB's. In case you missed that, I'll repeat:
- Those guys were obviously celebrity guests, and the fact that they're actors was not withheld from the TV viewing audience, as it was with Magda Rodriguez.
- Magda Rodriguez knowingly turned in an expressionistic theatrical performance (called "Vudu Mind Player" on her CV) wherein she acted the part of being in a trance. Simon Pegg and Stephen Fry did not turn in such theatrics, instead appearing to act naturally as themselves.
- Most importantly, Derren Brown issued a disclaimer at the start of the show that featured Magda Rodriguez, that no actors or stooges were used.
- He made no such disclaimer disavowing the use of actors on the show featuring Simon Pegg, and he most certainly did not use a disclaimer for the show that Stephen Fry was on.
Seriously "doesn't not use actors" = "does not hire actors". Unless you can show she was hired, it doesn't make him a liar.
Seriously? Now you're a mind reader, purporting to tell me what was in Derren Brown's head when he made the disclaimer?
No.
Derren Brown said what he said; not what
you wish he'd said, or what
you prefer to believe he meant by what he said.
He did not say "No actors or stooges were
hired." He did not say "No actors or stooges were
paid." He said "No actors or stooges were
used."
Yes I believe she was acting to an extent, because I know that you can't hypnotise a person in the way represented by DB. However, I've also seen non actors being able to act the part at hypnotist shows.
The sticking point is did DB know she was an actress and did Objective Productions hire her to play that part.
Agreed about the question whether DB knew she was an actress, but I disagree that the pay issue is even relevant.
The only reason the issue of pay ever became a point of contention in the first place is that others in this thread have hammered on the point that an actress appearing on the show means nothing unless I can present a paycheck or contract as evidence to prove that she got paid. It's a bit of a sidetrack really, and it was my fault for even entertaining that question seriously.
People can continue to harp on the matter of whether she was paid, but as far as I'm concerned the central issue in whether DB lied is
not whether she was paid, but whether he and his company in fact
knew she was an actress before choosing her for the piece.
I think it's a stretch to assume that nobody in the entire production company knew, considering she wasn't just a random audience member he selected and brought up onstage in an impromptu manner. According to his introduction, she had clearly been preselected for this bit, and he already knew all these other details about the "woo" stuff she claimed to be into, before "inviting" her "to Epping forest" to shoot the piece.
Is it reasonable to assume he would have established all these other facts about her beliefs in order to design a performance around her, without ever having asked her about her profession? Is it reasonable to assume that her being a trained, professional actress never came up in conversation at any point in this business of a professional television shoot?
Let's be realistic. You claim to have been involved in TV shoots before. You say you know people who work in TV. That being the case, you should realize the way people talk on a closed TV set, and you ought to know that most professionals in the industry can identify trained "theater people" from a mile away, by their behavior and demeanor on set.
As for the question whether she was acting, I feel it's rather obvious that she was. It's apparent just by watching the program that her behavior is an unnatural affectation, completely unlike a person "acting natural" or "being herself."
Standing in a stiff, mannequin-like pose, staring at a fixed point in space with her arm outstretched while Derren Brown physically turns away is not normal behavior under any normal circumstance. Derren Brown poses her like a doll, removes the ring from her finger, and when he turns his back on her she doesn't even move, instead maintaining the same robotic, "trance-like" pose. This indicates that she knows full well that this is a performance piece and not just an ad-lib conversation. Derren Brown even sits down on the fallen tree log in front of her, yet she remains standing like a statue, staring off into space like a zombie.
That's not normal behavior. That's
acting. Real hypnosis does not make people act like that in real life. Normal people onstage in a stage hypnotism show don't even act the part with that much conviction. The only places we see hypnosis subjects acting like that is in movies and on television. If you look at Derren Brown's other shows where he "hypnotizes" people, his other "subjects" in a studio setting don't behave like that. What is going on there is obviously a theatrical performance.
One must also acknowledge the fact that they were set up on location in a forest for a TV shoot with what appears to be at least 2 fixed television cameras on tracks and dollies, and what appears to be a third television camera mounted on a crane (for the dramatic overhead shots), along with boom mics, a director, and a full complement of crew and techs. I think it's fair to assume that Magda Rodriguez the professional actress had some clue that this was a professional TV set of a well-known spooky magician and she was expected to play the macabre role of a hypnotized voodoo doll victim. You know, the role that she previously listed as "Vudu Mind Player" in her CV.
If one takes this situation as a whole, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that her being an actress is not just a coincidence. Her behavior is simply not consistent with the way a normal person behaves. It's not consistent with the way a person behaves under hypnosis. It is exactly the way one would expect an actress to behave if she were on a TV shoot working a scene with the knowledge that she's expected to act like she's in a trance state.
Notice that Magda's role on the DB show is displayed in her Resumé...
Yeah, I didn't even see that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'd thought all references of her appearance on DB's show had been removed from the Web, but apparently that one got missed.
However, it's only vaguely interesting, again nothing that couldn't be explained by her adding everything she's ever done to make it look like she's very experienced. I'm sure if I ever put together a Resumé of my work I'd want to include Magic/Prop build Consultant for Amazing Johnathan, Kevin James and Billy McComb, Magic Technician at the Magic Castle, Performed magic in several Vegas casinos... none of these things are lies, but they stretch the envelope without context.
http://www.castingcallpro.com/uk/view.php?uid=50174&position=1&page=1
Why would she not do that? It's entirely reasonable and consistent with presenting a complete CV. I would not expect Ms. Rodriguez to leave off any public performance, especially one as captivating and widely recognized as her Voodoo Doll routine.
As to the question whether she's actually a
stooge, according to self-proclaimed professionals in this and the other thread, that determination rests on whether or not she was informed of the trick beforehand, or explicitly instructed on how to act. We have no way of knowing for certain what was said between her and Derren Brown prior to this performance, and there are certainly better examples of blatantly staged situations from Derren Brown's TV shows. This one appears to be a case wherein DB simply sourced an actress for a part in which a nuanced performance was desired, despite the denial in his disclaimer of using actors.
Now I'm not saying that's the only possible explanation that makes sense. I'm just saying that I haven't heard a single plausible alternate explanation that fits the evidence, so until I find a better explanation I consider it entirely reasonable.
Of course I expect most of the posters in this thread to completely handwave and disregard all the analysis I have presented here, and instead continue along the cheap and cowardly route of mocking, namecalling me an "anti-fan," making false accusations of all manner of logical fallacies, and complaining that I haven't provided conclusive proof.
I don't hate Derren Brown. I've seen the guy do some amazing things and I think he's a very good showman.
The whole point of my involvement in this thread has nothing to do with hating Derren Brown. The only reason I'm debating this is because I recognize that Derren Brown has become a bit of a polarizing figure around here, in large part because an awful lot of people appear unable or unwilling to approach his act with a critical mind. So I'm arguing this issue to demonstrate that one should make one's own observations and inquiries and use one's own critical reasoning skills to reach one's own conclusions instead of just taking some celebrity on TV at his word.
