Derren Brown Trick or treat

[DJM]

He doesn't need to mention it in the disclaimer because it's very obvious to anyone watching the show what he means by that.. I doubt that any viewer finds a problem about some assistants helping Derren to acheive the effects, especially when it's done in such an obvious way. After all, this is part of the magic world and there's no reason to put a disclaimer about this issue. Just common sense.


And I believe this is one of the few effects where he uses assistants like that.. I'll let you know if I remember anything else.

 

[volatile]

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.

She went to a pre-screening in which she was selected to be a participant.

Once selected, the trick happened as televised, as far as she admits. She wasn't acting, she wasn't playing along, she wasn't a stooge. It just seems that Derren thought she'd be more susceptible than other crowd members to whatever it was he was doing...

She knew the pre-screening was a pre-screening, and she knew the final trick was to be televised, if that helps.

 

[skipjack]

Once selected, the trick happened as televised, as far as she admits. She wasn't acting, she wasn't playing along, she wasn't a stooge. It just seems that Derren thought she'd be more susceptible than other crowd members to whatever it was he was doing...

She certainly wasn't put under hypnosis on-screen, since that's not allowed on UK television, so we know that something was concealed - it's just a question of what. Essentially all the possibilities imply that she was knowingly hiding something from you, which is why putting a very specific direct question to her might produce an interesting reaction, even if she stuck to her story.

 

[skipjack]

He doesn't need to mention it in the disclaimer because it's very obvious to anyone watching the show what he means by that.. I doubt that any viewer finds a problem about some assistants helping Derren to acheive the effects, especially when it's done in such an obvious way. After all, this is part of the magic world and there's no reason to put a disclaimer about this issue. Just common sense.

Your statement has the benefit of hindsight and familiarity with magic. He does need to mention it in the disclaimer, since some of the viewers will not have seen any of his shows previously, and may have little idea of what to expect. If he's not plainly and completely accurate in his disclaimer, there's little reason to suppose he won't sometimes employ camera tricks, etc., rather than the methods he admits to. The switching scenes were not really "part of the magic world". They were totally believable exactly as presented, whereas Derren usually aims to pull off something seemingly impossible or highly implausible and give a bogus (usually psychological) explanation, although new viewers might not be aware of that.

 

[Jekyll]

Your statement has the benefit of hindsight and familiarity with magic. He does need to mention it in the disclaimer, since some of the viewers will not have seen any of his shows previously, and may have little idea of what to expect. If he's not plainly and completely accurate in his disclaimer, there's little reason to suppose he won't sometimes employ camera tricks, etc., rather than the methods he admits to. The switching scenes were not really "part of the magic world". They were totally believable exactly as presented, whereas Derren usually aims to pull off something seemingly impossible or highly implausible and give a bogus (usually psychological) explanation, although new viewers might not be aware of that.

Look, you have the whole of the internet to draw your examples from. Can you find one single person who didn't realise that the guy who took Derren's place was not a spectator?
From where I'm sitting, it looks like everyone understood the disclaimer as it was meant to be taken, but I'm open to counter-examples.

 

[volatile]

She certainly wasn't put under hypnosis on-screen, since that's not allowed on UK television, so we know that something was concealed - it's just a question of what. Essentially all the possibilities imply that she was knowingly hiding something from you, which is why putting a very specific direct question to her might produce an interesting reaction, even if she stuck to her story.

Why?

Juts because you don't know how a trick is done doesn't automatically imply a stooge or patsy being involved.

My friend isn't an actor, she's just a normal member of the public. She wasn't hired to appear on TV. She responded to a casting request.

If he was going to use stooges, surely he'd use decent ones?!

 

[skipjack]

As I haven't seen the episode, I rely on your description that it "involved generating fear of a simple rock" - her fear, I assume. If the pre-screening had included her hypnotic induction, she would know that and would have information that she carefully withheld (and was probably asked to keep secret). The same applies for any dual reality setup, such as using a "rock" that was actually scary for some reason, but nevertheless looked harmless to the television viewers, or merely surprising her, but then passing her surprise off as fear by skilful video editing/resequencing (surprise and fear produce similar facial expressions). Of course, those possibilities, while interesting, are also ruled out if you accept as true her statement that the trick happened as televised. If the trick simply relied on her susceptibility to Derren's suggestions, either she just "played along" or she had been hypnotised. I suspect that either she was persuaded not to divulge some important details of what happened or that there's simply some wordplay going on here, so that her description of what happened seemed reasonable to her, but would be regarded as misleading by most other people once in possession of all the facts.

 

[tkingdoll]

As I haven't seen the episode, I rely on your description that it "involved generating fear of a simple rock" - her fear, I assume. If the pre-screening had included her hypnotic induction, she would know that and would have information that she carefully withheld (and was probably asked to keep secret). The same applies for any dual reality setup, such as using a "rock" that was actually scary for some reason, but nevertheless looked harmless to the television viewers, or merely surprising her, but then passing her surprise off as fear by skilful video editing/resequencing (surprise and fear produce similar facial expressions). Of course, those possibilities, while interesting, are also ruled out if you accept as true her statement that the trick happened as televised. If the trick simply relied on her susceptibility to Derren's suggestions, either she just "played along" or she had been hypnotised. I suspect that either she was persuaded not to divulge some important details of what happened or that there's simply some wordplay going on here, so that her description of what happened seemed reasonable to her, but would be regarded as misleading by most other people once in possession of all the facts.

Being hypnotised is 'just playing along'. There's no actual trance state in which you can manipulate people. They are always just playing along. The degree to which you are likely to do this is what the vetting of participants is for.

99% of television could be called 'misleading once in possession of all the facts'. Nowhere is this more true than in magic.

I mean, you might as well say 'if we knew how the trick is done we wouldn't be fooled'. And there wouldn't be a TV show either.

As I said before, if you are looking for any sort of integrity or ethics, television is not the place to find them. All that matters is getting the best show for the budget.

PS this may blow your mind, but lots of reality TV is scripted.

 

[volatile]

Let me find the video - I've just messaged her to find out which episode of TotM it's in...

 

[skipjack]

Regardless of the precise nature of hypnosis, hypnotic induction cannot be televised. Anyway, the main object of discussion is not the show itself, or the ethics of it, but the accuracy of the description given by a participant long afterwards.

I would point out that if the person in question "responded to a casting request", she must have been interested in acting or performing of some kind, and therefore was not "just a normal member of the public". If she was unpaid, that seems rather mean on the part of the production company.

 

[volatile]

By that rationale, no-one who's on television doing anything all is ever to be believed!

 

[tkingdoll]

I would point out that if the person in question "responded to a casting request", she must have been interested in acting or performing of some kind, and therefore was not "just a normal member of the public".

Yes, wanting to be on TV, being an extrovert, or harbouring desires for attention is what makes the perfect hypnotism subject. If you do not have those qualities, you are probably useless for the purposes of the show.

Hence the calls for people to participate, rather than grabbing random strangers off the street. You'd need to film hundreds before you got footage you can use. That's hardly economical.

Throwing a frisbee into a live audience is another way of narrowing down who you end up with. If someone doesn't want to be on the stage, isn't at least up for it in some way (and therefore likely to be suggestible), then he/she will simply not pick up the disc. Or will be reluctant to do so, in which case the performer can ask for another throw without it looking suspicious.

Why are you trying to apply your own standards to TV show making? Normal rules do not apply, it's a totally different universe. And selective editing plus non-disclosure agreements makes any post-even interview as untrustworthy as the hypnotism itself.

 

[skipjack]

Derren may well know about hypnosis and sometimes uses suggestible extroverts, but he's not presented as a stage hypnotist - he claims to use suggestion and psychology, but not hypnosis. Everything I've seen him do is consistent with all the hypnosis malarkey being fake and used merely to misdirect the viewers and any live audience.

 

[volatile]

Penn and Teller say they're really shooting each other in the face. "Suggestion" and "Psychology" are Derren's "live bullets" - they're just misdirection to cover magic tricks.

Are you cross that Penn and Teller don't really shoot each other? Or that The Pendragon's are really making their quick-changes with really clever props and mind-boggling skill and dexterity, rather than "magic"?

 

[tkingdoll]

Derren may well know about hypnosis and sometimes uses suggestible extroverts, but he's not presented as a stage hypnotist - he claims to use suggestion and psychology, but not hypnosis. Everything I've seen him do is consistent with all the hypnosis malarkey being fake and used merely to misdirect the viewers and any live audience.

He doesn't use the standard sort of hypnosis that we see in woo shrink offices, no. But he uses a form of it. Which is really just persuading people that they really want to do something that deep down they want to do anyway. Here's a quote from an interview:

There's three sides to that. One, I'm not using formal hypnosis anyway. Two I don't want to be seen as a Hypnotist because there are hypnotists and we know what they are. I think it's important to be seen as yourself for what you do and not be too easily labelled. And three there are all sorts of problems if you're known as a hypnotist in terms of getting gigs and all sorts of legal issues. I use it covertly, but at that point it ceases to be hypnosis, it becomes… suggestion, or waking hypnosis, or something that isn't strictly speaking hypnosis per se.

 

[tmackean]

Skipjack,

We're not talking legal contracts here.

If you think that the actors who assisted Derren with the street switching trick violates his statement about Psychology and misdirection at the start of the show, you must be in a tiny minority. One, perhaps?

I'm pleased, actually, to see a bit of genuine psychology such as that 'experiment' appear on the show. It reminiscent of Richard Wiseman's colour-changing card video on YouTube.

There's more of a debate to be had over his use of the terms like psychology to cover straight conjuring, but it's been raging in numerous threads here for quite some time. There's no doubt that the spiel he uses to dress up the tricks is bunkum, but it's entertaining bunkum.

I don't fall for it for a second, but to be fair, I know people who do think he's using much more genuine psychology than he is. The truth is, I quite like to see people amazed like that, and I'd hate to disabuse them by telling them the truth (on the rare times I've figured out one of his tricks).

 

[skipjack]

The switching "experiments" didn't violate his statement about psychology and misdirection, but did violate his clear assertion that at no point are actors or stooges used in the show.

Unless you worked on his shows, how do you know, pmckean, that you never "fell for it"? For example, when an audience member seemingly could open a rotary combination lock without Derren providing a valid combination, was that (a) psychology, (b) trickery to force the choice of a valid combination, (c) dual reality, (d) a padlock prop possessing an externally accessible "quick release" button or lever of some kind, (e) some other method, or (f) impossible to decide without inside information?

 

[tmackean]

You misunderstand me; Derren Brown is a clever conjurer who presents new variations on well-understood tricks. He dresses them up with ludicrous, but entertaining cod-psychology. I never believe his explanations, so I never fall for it.

In the padlock example, I would disregard his (I assume) suggestion of a psychological mechanism and assume that there's a magic trick involved. I don't need to understand the mechanism of the trick not to fall for it.

I've read quite a bit about how he does what he does, I've seen (nearly) every piece of TV he's done, more or less, and I've been to his "Something Wicked" stage show. Highly entertaining.

I do think that he has a genuine interest in skepticism, and some of the routines that he does are aimed at debunking the supernatural. Even then, he tells mistruths. In Messiah, he talked about "Cold Reading" and then proceeded to give a demonstration that smacked of something a lot warmer.

 

[Azrael 5]

The switching "experiments" didn't violate his statement about psychology and misdirection, but did violate his clear assertion that at no point are actors or stooges used in the show.

Unless you worked on his shows, how do you know, pmckean, that you never "fell for it"? For example, when an audience member seemingly could open a rotary combination lock without Derren providing a valid combination, was that (a) psychology, (b) trickery to force the choice of a valid combination, (c) dual reality, (d) a padlock prop possessing an externally accessible "quick release" button or lever of some kind, (e) some other method, or (f) impossible to decide without inside information?

Grow a brain skipjack for goodness sake.
When he states actors or stooges he means people pretending that a trick or event that is happening to them is real whilst apearing to be members of the public.
What do you want a ten minute debate at the start of each show what "actors and stooges " means?

Derren is a magician you are supposed to "fall for it".How lame would it be if he said "Its just a trick padlock but we will pretend your favourite number works"
Its classed as showmanship,which he does admit to using!
As is the norm on here birng me some evidence that general viewers of his show don't understand the phrase "no actors or stooges".
Members of the production/crew assisitng with a performance like on the changing person on street effect are in no way stooges.The effect isnt on them,tehy are on the inside,if you like.

 

[skipjack]

Like DJM, you are providing an interpretation with the benefit of hindsight and experience of magic. A first-time viewer isn't necessarily familiar with the term "stooge" and doesn't know what is to come when he views Derren stating his disclaimer. I didn't assert the "person switch" used a stooge; it used an actor. My stooge example was his use of Robbie Williams, who helpfully dodged Derren's questions about feeling pain.

Replying about the padlock doesn't make much sense if you haven't seen that effect. The padlock was left with the audience member for quite some time, which would be very risky if it was a trick padlock. On the other hand, forcing the audience member to choose a valid combination seemed very hard. Then again, the presentation was roughly that of any conventional conjuring trick, so to avoid accepting the "obvious" explanation, you'd need to suppose it wasn't a trick, but what else could it be?