Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed.
Derren Brown Trick or treat
- Thread starter oglommi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- derren brown
Derren stated, "This program fuses magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship. I achieve all the results you'll see through a varied mixture of those techniques. At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." There's no hint of a need for exceptions or special interpretation in that. He's clearly saying that everything will be exclusively down to his use of the five methods listed.
You shouldn't eliminate the possibility that he's lying.
Azrael 5
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,106
You cannot grasp common sense it appears.When people see Derren's work-and to some extent any magic on TV they are going to scream actors/stooges so he has to deflect form that by his disclaimer.It seems only you has a problem understanding the statement.
Skipjack, you need to see the "no actors and stooges" statement within the context of mentalism and magic. The people who were in that effect from London that you mentioned were not actors/stooges, they were only assistants. And it should be very obvious to the audience.
Last edited:
By pretending to be the original questioner, the assistant(s) were, by definition, acting, not just assisting. My main point was that Robbie Williams knowingly assisted the effect (by the nature of his answers to Derren's questions), which means that he was a stooge. That spoilt the effect. What's mysterious about somebody closing their eyes and going along with having needles stuck to their arms with no spectators present, and key parts of the process not shown in view of the camera anyway?
Derren's introductory statements are clearly directed at the viewers in general, not just the small minority of viewers who are knowledgeable about the performance of illusions and the techniques available. It's therefore reasonable to interpret them at face value. If he's allowed actors or stooges in some circumstances, where does one draw the line? If I'm content to see acting, I might as well watch "Bewitched" or "Start Trek" instead.
Derren's introductory statements are clearly directed at the viewers in general, not just the small minority of viewers who are knowledgeable about the performance of illusions and the techniques available. It's therefore reasonable to interpret them at face value. If he's allowed actors or stooges in some circumstances, where does one draw the line? If I'm content to see acting, I might as well watch "Bewitched" or "Start Trek" instead.
Yes, you might as well watch some fiction instead. If you want to watch a programme which does what it claims, or is as it appears at face value, may I suggest you don't watch Derren Brown.
For those that are interested in Derren Brown, I started a thread yesterday in the General Skeptism and Paranormal forum asking about NLP and woo.
I was referred to this 11 page thread from earlier this year which contains some excellent discussions on him and his methods.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71504
I was referred to this 11 page thread from earlier this year which contains some excellent discussions on him and his methods.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71504
You're distorting my meaning, tkingdoll. I was objecting to the disclaimer, not the whole programme. There's no need for Derren to use a partly fictional disclaimer. Obviously, trickery is to be expected in the main part of the programme, but if the disclaimer isn't accurate, that opens the door to dubbed audio, computer-generated or manually-edited images, deleted or resequenced frames, etc., making almost anything possible.
Seriously, if you're worried about the ethics of programming, you are going to have to stick to fiction, because ethics left TV a long time ago. Ever watch an experiment on a science show? Chances are it was faked. TV talent show? Rigged. And TV magic shows...well, they already tell you they're going to be full of deceit. Might as well take that to mean the disclaimer, too.
I realize my objection, even if well-founded and carefully explained, is unlikely to change the programmes. I'm aware that recording science demonstrations (actual experiments are much rarer) for broadcast can be difficult, so things are sometimes faked. I rarely watch talent shows. In general, I am quite skeptical.
I do quite enjoy Derren's TV shows overall. In the past, I've also enjoyed watching Chan Canasta and other illusionists.
My post usually needn't be quoted in full (or at all) when replying to it. Doing so isn't necessary; this isn't Usenet!
I do quite enjoy Derren's TV shows overall. In the past, I've also enjoyed watching Chan Canasta and other illusionists.
My post usually needn't be quoted in full (or at all) when replying to it. Doing so isn't necessary; this isn't Usenet!
No, it isn't Usenet, it's the JREF forum. And like most forums, there are people reading and contributing to the discussion other than skipjack. It is not sensible to reply to a post without quoting it, as others may not realise to what the reply refers. It is also quite easy for the quoted poster to go back and edit their original post, making the reply redundant.
So, thanks for the usage tip, but I think I'll stick to what works for everyone else here.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
I posted this in another thread recently, but it's of relevance here:
A friend of mine was on one of Derren Brown's shows (it might even have been an episode of Trick of the Mind, actually), as a participant in a trick. Whilst the way the show was broadcast implied she was a random passer-by, she had actually been to a pre-screening where the most 'suitable' participants (whatever that might mean) were selected through a variety of means.
That's not to say that he "cheats" - my friend insists that she wasn't a stooge and the trick performed on her, which involved generating fear of a simple rock, if I recall correctly, was performed as televised. It's just that the people he picks "at random" might not always be as random as the TV editing implies.
A friend of mine was on one of Derren Brown's shows (it might even have been an episode of Trick of the Mind, actually), as a participant in a trick. Whilst the way the show was broadcast implied she was a random passer-by, she had actually been to a pre-screening where the most 'suitable' participants (whatever that might mean) were selected through a variety of means.
That's not to say that he "cheats" - my friend insists that she wasn't a stooge and the trick performed on her, which involved generating fear of a simple rock, if I recall correctly, was performed as televised. It's just that the people he picks "at random" might not always be as random as the TV editing implies.
After being switched in, they acted, albeit for a short time, as though already in conversation, i.e., took over the conversational role, not just the presence, of Derren. Previously, they had the role of carrying a poster. Almost certainly, they were scripted and rehearsed. They were, by definition, acting.
Did you ask your friend, volatile, whether she was an unwitting stooge, through, say, having been told that she was just rehearsing, auditioning, doing a screen test, or assisting in someone else's rehearsal, audition or screen test? Also, did she acquire information about what really happened that she was asked not to divulge to others afterwards? For example, whether she was really in fear or just doing as expected so as to remain part of the show.
Last edited:
Like I said before, they were not actors, they were ASSISTANTS. The same way stage show magicians use assistants (usually hot girls) to be part of the trick. If the spectators are the ones who were scripted and rehearsed then that would be considered stooges/actors.
I don't see why it's so complicated to understand.
Being assistants does not imply that their assistance was not acting. Clearly, it was, which makes the assistants actors at least for the duration of their appearance. There was nothing in the disclaimer to limit its application to spectators. It simply states, "At no point are actors or stooges used in the show." I am not, of course, classifying those assistants as stooges. I didn't notice any mention of them in the credits at the end of the show, so it remains unknown whether they were hired specifically for their on-screen roles in that show, but I would think that at least some of them were (to help achieve successively less resemblance to Derren Brown). Have you seen the same assistants working with Derren on any other occasion?