Derren Brown

[teacher]

Have you experienced this guy Derren Brown yet? He's a magician/mentalist/hypnotist/circus type act/showman. He’s had series here and live acts and several one hour specials, all with themes. Russian Roulette, Séance and Messiah are his most recent. What do you think?

 

[Azrael 5]

I think he's brilliant.He has turned magic/mentalism on its head and challenged viewers perceptions of what is and isnt real! His show Seance is the most complained about show ever!

 

[CFLarsen]

Da Bomb!










.......did I really use that phrase?

 

[davidhorman]

I don't like him much. Although some of what he does might be classed as "psychological illusions", I think a lot of it should be filed under "dramatisation." I'm thinking specifically of Russian Roulette, Zombies, and when he walked across a deadly maze blindfolded.

And I don't think he should be excused under the banner of being "just entertainment" - people go away thinking he can really do these amazing things (backed up with false explanations) and that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Have we lost the old thread on him?

David

 

[CFLarsen]

davidhorman,

In the "Russian Roulette" show, can you explain how he guessed what chamber the bullet was in?

 

[Azrael 5]

David Horma we've been through this..it's called presentation! Geez

 

[davidhorman]

In the "Russian Roulette" show, can you explain how he guessed what chamber the bullet was in?

Can explain how [insert magic trick for which you have no explanation]? The difference is that [magician] didn't deliberately set out to leave anyone with the impression that he went to school at Hogwarts.

For the record, no, I can't explain it, same as I couldn't explain it when Simon Drake did it - although he didn't claim to be doing it with his psychological analysis of the guy who loaded the gun. And I do believe my local police force when they issued the statement that they were satisfied that no-one was ever in any danger.

David Horma we've been through this..it's called presentation! Geez

So should I stop being disgusted at Uri Geller's shenanigans and applaud his "presentation"? Not saying Brown is Geller...

David

 

[CFLarsen]

Can explain how [insert magic trick for which you have no explanation]? The difference is that [magician] didn't deliberately set out to leave anyone with the impression that he went to school at Hogwarts.

For the record, no, I can't explain it, same as I couldn't explain it when Simon Drake did it - although he didn't claim to be doing it with his psychological analysis of the guy who loaded the gun. And I do believe my local police force when they issued the statement that they were satisfied that no-one was ever in any danger.

OK, you can't explain it. How do you know it was a dramatisation, then?

 

[Garrette]

I've only seen his Seance show (I think it was that one; the abandoned building with all the young folks; one bit with the female then the male behind the curtain, ostensibly hypnotized or "possessed").

Plus, I've got two of his books.

I find him impressive in all respects.

The bit about leaving his audiences with the impression that it's more than just tricks is overreaching, I think. Certainly the comparison to Geller is mistaken.

There is "in-show-mode" presentation and "not-show-mode" presentation. When not in show mode, Derren does not present himself as having powers, though he does avoid answering questions directly. When in show mode, he sells his act and he sells it hard.

If, in the course of his act, he vehemently swore he was granted special powers by aliens, could channel the dead, and was telekinetic, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest nor make him dishonest.

On the other, hand, if he presented himself in the same manner outside his act, he would be Gelleresque.

He doesn't, and he isn't.

 

[davidhorman]

OK, you can't explain it. How do you know it was a dramatisation, then?

I find it probable that it was, based on my assumption that a) Derren Brown isn't stupid, and b) the fact that no-one was ever in any danger, according to the local police.

There is "in-show-mode" presentation and "not-show-mode" presentation. When not in show mode, Derren does not present himself as having powers, though he does avoid answering questions directly. When in show mode, he sells his act and he sells it hard.

I think that distinction is lost on a lot of people, and he wouldn't be as successful as he is if it wasn't.

The bit about leaving his audiences with the impression that it's more than just tricks is overreaching, I think.

Maybe I should make it clear that my experience of Brown is only from his TV shows, and mostly the early ones. In those, in my opinion, he's trying to leave his audience with the impression that he can, for example, psychologically deduce which hand a line of volunteers will choose, that he can make people in the street stop dead and turn around from 300 yards away, and that he puts his life on the line based on his assessment of whether a single uttered word is truth or lie.

On the other, hand, if he presented himself in the same manner outside his act, he would be Gelleresque.

Would you be okay with Geller if he started every act with a disclaimer of "I may or may not have psychic powers"? That seems to me to be about all Brown's "not-show-mode" statements amount to (with psychological replacing psychic, of course).

David

 

[CFLarsen]

I find it probable that it was, based on my assumption that a) Derren Brown isn't stupid, and b) the fact that no-one was ever in any danger, according to the local police.

That may be. How was it a dramatization? It was live. How did he know where the bullet was?

I think that distinction is lost on a lot of people, and he wouldn't be as successful as he is if it wasn't.

There will always be people who want to believe, despite the fact that they are told that he does not have special powers.

Maybe I should make it clear that my experience of Brown is only from his TV shows, and mostly the early ones. In those, in my opinion, he's trying to leave his audience with the impression that he can, for example, psychologically deduce which hand a line of volunteers will choose, that he can make people in the street stop dead and turn around from 300 yards away, and that he puts his life on the line based on his assessment of whether a single uttered word is truth or lie.

During the Russian Roulette show, he explained why he chose people. It was pretty convincing.

Would you be okay with Geller if he started every act with a disclaimer of "I may or may not have psychic powers"? That seems to me to be about all Brown's "not-show-mode" statements amount to (with psychological replacing psychic, of course).

It would not be OK. Derren Brown makes it perfectly clear that he does not have psychic powers. If Uri Geller were to say that he may or may not have psychic powers does not take away his responsibility to his audience. If he has powers, he should state it. If he hasn't, he should remove any trace of doubt by being clear.

It's not a matter of opinion if he has psychic powers. He either has them, or he hasn't.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by davidhorman

Would you be okay with Geller if he started every act with a disclaimer of "I may or may not have psychic powers"? That seems to me to be about all Brown's "not-show-mode" statements amount to (with psychological replacing psychic, of course).

No, for the reasons CFLarsen gave.

In addition, it is difficult to discuss the disclaimers without the effect. For instance, John Edward's late great show "Crossing Over" had a disclaimer which met all the legal requirements (apparently), but which I feel did not absolve him of his obvious charlatanry.

On the other hand, irrespective of whether oro not Derren Brown meets some technical requirement for a disclaimer, the effect is that most reasonable people recognize he is a magician. A few believe paranormal abilities; a greater number may believe psychological techniques. Most see a skilled magician. You are among those who see a skilled magician. (For this discussion I’m ignoring the heavy reliance on psychology for many magical effects).

Perhaps the proof is in the reception of a relevant and reputable professional community. Is the magical community decrying Derren Brown? I don’t think so.

(Note that I said “reputable professional community.” There is no equivalent of which I’m aware to speak out on behalf of Geller, though parapsychologists and parapsychological organizations exist.)

 

[davidhorman]

It would not be OK. Derren Brown makes it perfectly clear that he does not have psychic powers.

I've never meant to suggest that DB claims he has psychic powers, but he does lead people to believe he has these quasi-psychic psychological powers that allow him to "read minds" (again, non-psychically) when in fact I believe the majority of what he does involves no such thing.

I don't like the idea of someone misleading an audience, even if his claims don't venture into the realm of the paranormal. I know, magicians mislead their audiences all the time, blah blah, but there's some extra thing to Derren Brown's act that separates them in my mind.

That may be. How was it a dramatization? It was live. How did he know where the bullet was?

I don't know. I don't think it was for the reasons he claimed. I'm using dramatisation to mean an act, a sham, etc, not that it was prerecorded (if it was, they would have been able to show a shot of him actually firing the gun!).

If Uri Geller were to say that he may or may not have psychic powers does not take away his responsibility to his audience. If he has powers, he should state it. If he hasn't, he should remove any trace of doubt by being clear.

And for the same reasons I don't think Derren Brown should be saying he was risking his life on the stress and timbre of the spoken word "yes" when he wasn't (if he wasn't, which I believe to be the case). Maybe we just have different ideas of how far that responsibility to the audience stretches.

Perhaps the proof is in the reception of a relevant and reputable professional community. Is the magical community decrying Derren Brown? I dont think so.

I haven't heard the magical community decrying Uri Geller either - although to be honest I haven't really heard them say anything. And I do consider them relevant to Geller, since he uses the skills and techniques of that community and passes them off as paranormal.

David

 

[teacher]

Concerning Derren Brown's ethics - do I really need to be saying this?

Because James Randi is so heavily involved with scepticism, he tends to emphasise the 'it's just a trick folks' aspect.

When magicians perform their tricks, it isn't plausible to keep referring to the 'just a trick folks' and winking throughout the show in a knowing way and constantly reminding people that she/he has no psychic powers.

The lies, deception, concentration (as though building an inner power force) and misdirection which all magicians do as a necessary part of the show, IS 90% of the trick. Without a major part of most of these aspects, most tricks don't work. Yes I said lies and deception. They want to convince you to believe or see something that really is not there. I'm sure Mr Randi himself would (and I think has) confessed this openly.

Now the absolution (confession or justification for the foolery) is in the TV/show slot itself -an 'entertainment' show. MOST magicians do not tell the viewers before, during or after, that it was NOT psychic. David Blaine, David Copperfield, Kris Angel, Paul Daniels (an outspoken sceptic) even Penn and Teller sometimes I think. Do men go around reminding people that they are breathing, male, made of flesh? No. Why? It's a given.

Now Derren Brown is not only an outspoken sceptic, but he tells viewers at the beginning of EVERY show that he is not psychic and he even explains HOW he does what he does. He does not give a percentage of what is magic or deception or showmanship or misdirection or mentalism etc. I mean, he's just explained how, now give him a break and let him amaze viewers (using the very misdirection techniques and no psychic ability, just like he said). Are you expecting him at every stage to break it down? Some posters here seem to.

He even did a one hour special in the US (entitled 'Messiah') specifically decrying the gullibility of people generally and exposed 5 of the main biggest paranormal claims of today. He has worked with Dr Richard Wiseman - a former award winning magician turned psychologist and of couse a sceptic (known and well respected by Mr Randi by the way).

Another special called Seance exposed mediums. He's also duplicated Geller and other routines (apparently well convincingly) and also says he is not a psychic.

To those who accuse him of deceiving audiences, I feel you are not doing him justice. He does not have to justify himself or confom to any methodology that some viewers may prefer. Having said that, I know of no other magician who is so regular and clear in saying, in effect, that it is just a show. Independently, and without a need to, he is a great advocate of scepticism.

He is refreshing and puts a great slant on deception. If one magician direct/deceives you to believe he is using his mind to elevate a pack of cards rather than a piece of string and another magician has you believe that mentalism is the main aspect when it is a conjuring tick, it's a great idea.

At the end of the day, like all magicians, he deceives audiences like you and I, just as he claims he will at the start of the show. Not that this would make any difference, but I know James Randi is in contact with him and having corresponded with Mr Randi, I get the impression that he is a fan/supporter, but you might want to ask him yourself if you feel you need the permission or support of such a well respected man before endorsing him.

I have no axe to grind and I'm not working for Brown, I just feel (for the reasons I've stated) that this needed to be said. I hope this helps and that others will point unjustified negative proponents either to this E-Mail or watch him (again if needed) yourself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps the proof is in the reception of a relevant and reputable professional community. Is the magical community decrying Derren Brown? I don’t think so.

On the contrary. I read an article (somewhere) where he was praised for taking magic to a new level, away from the tired, dusty, hat-and-tails, doves-out-the-sleeve image that it has with many people.

Let's face it: It isn't every day that a new magic trick appears. It takes innovation and skill.

 

[Azrael 5]

Derren states at the beginning of all his TV shows "I achieve all the results you see through a mixture of magic misdirection and showmanship..its not psychic"
How much clearer can he be David Horman?

 

[Azrael 5]

Here's a link I havent seen before,maybe its worthy of the skepticism forum?
http://www.generationcross.org.uk/features/articles/derren_brown.php

 

[tkingdoll]

Concerning Derren Brown's ethics - do I really need to be saying this?

Because James Randi is so heavily involved with scepticism, he tends to emphasise the 'it's just a trick folks' aspect.

When magicians perform their tricks, it isn't plausible to keep referring to the 'just a trick folks' and winking throughout the show in a knowing way and constantly reminding people that she/he has no psychic powers.

The lies, deception, concentration (as though building an inner power force) and misdirection which all magicians do as a necessary part of the show, IS 90% of the trick. Without a major part of most of these aspects, most tricks don't work. Yes I said lies and deception. They want to convince you to believe or see something that really is not there. I'm sure Mr Randi himself would (and I think has) confessed this openly.

Now the absolution (confession or justification for the foolery) is in the TV/show slot itself -an 'entertainment' show. MOST magicians do not tell the viewers before, during or after, that it was NOT psychic. David Blaine, David Copperfield, Kris Angel, Paul Daniels (an outspoken sceptic) even Penn and Teller sometimes I think. Do men go around reminding people that they are breathing, male, made of flesh? No. Why? It's a given.

Now Derren Brown is not only an outspoken sceptic, but he tells viewers at the beginning of EVERY show that he is not psychic and he even explains HOW he does what he does. He does not give a percentage of what is magic or deception or showmanship or misdirection or mentalism etc. I mean, he's just explained how, now give him a break and let him amaze viewers (using the very misdirection techniques and no psychic ability, just like he said). Are you expecting him at every stage to break it down? Some posters here seem to.

He even did a one hour special in the US (entitled 'Messiah') specifically decrying the gullibility of people generally and exposed 5 of the main biggest paranormal claims of today. He has worked with Dr Richard Wiseman - a former award winning magician turned psychologist and of couse a sceptic (known and well respected by Mr Randi by the way).

Another special called Seance exposed mediums. He's also duplicated Geller and other routines (apparently well convincingly) and also says he is not a psychic.

To those who accuse him of deceiving audiences, I feel you are not doing him justice. He does not have to justify himself or confom to any methodology that some viewers may prefer. Having said that, I know of no other magician who is so regular and clear in saying, in effect, that it is just a show. Independently, and without a need to, he is a great advocate of scepticism.

He is refreshing and puts a great slant on deception. If one magician direct/deceives you to believe he is using his mind to elevate a pack of cards rather than a piece of string and another magician has you believe that mentalism is the main aspect when it is a conjuring tick, it's a great idea.

At the end of the day, like all magicians, he deceives audiences like you and I, just as he claims he will at the start of the show. Not that this would make any difference, but I know James Randi is in contact with him and having corresponded with Mr Randi, I get the impression that he is a fan/supporter, but you might want to ask him yourself if you feel you need the permission or support of such a well respected man before endorsing him.

I have no axe to grind and I'm not working for Brown, I just feel (for the reasons I've stated) that this needed to be said. I hope this helps and that others will point unjustified negative proponents either to this E-Mail or watch him (again if needed) yourself.

Hear hear! I was about to write something similar but you have done a much more thorough job of it. I saw DB's live show last year and he gave spiritualism such a thorough debunking, it was delightful.

Unfortunately, in the foyer afterwards there were still some audience members who chose to believe in a paranormal explanation! I overheard comments like "say what you like, but he must be psychic, how else would he "know" those things about strangers". Some folks want to be fooled, it seems.

 

[teacher]

Of course TV wants to get ratings (for any show including all magic shows). Actors/Magicians may not have as much to do with promoting it as the... promotors, who might watch it and decide how to 'sell' it.

Brown's 'most complained about show in history' says a lot about the quality of his seance hoax. More importantly, it says a lot about why people would complain more about a sceptical expose (of people who claim to contact the dead), and not because it was an expose, than fakers who actually claim to communicate with the dead, like mediums et al. And that's OUR (the sceptics) fault for keeping quiet!


N.B. I'm putting over 'a' perspective and invite feedback to this:
When watching the likes of Randi, Blaine and Copperfield etc. people are amazed by what they do. We would quite understand many people believing they have special powers (given that lack of constant reassurance to the contrary, the smoke and lights, the mental focus, misdirection etc.)

If magicians (like Mr. Randi) try to sell the image of magic as JUST a puzzle, like the Rubic cube, for audiences to solve. If they suggest that is all people watch it for and don't then explain the trick or offer it for sale (like any other puzzle), then aren't they wrong?

Magic tries to convince viewers it is magic or sourcery, hence the name, albeit done in the name of entertainment. The conversations afterwards tell you this.

Do some of the posters here want to suggest a protocol that magicians should follow in order NOT to be decried as 'in the same league as those groups typically targetted by this site?

 

[teacher]

I might just add, if it is not obvious by my last post, that I have no issue with the protocol that any magician I know of, already has.

Even if asked 'do you use real magic or psychic means?' and the response of 'you decide', is O.K. by me. Any response is potentially damaging to the artiste and the art of illusion. If someone asks, what does it say of the enquirer? If it's so obvious that magic is just entertainment, why ask? If it isn't, has the illusionist been to deceptive? Like an interview with the police, plead the first amendment and be neutral.

Only people (magicians or anyone) who claims to do something by such means (of special powers) is the target of challenge in my opinion - not just the illusion, as ALL magicians do this.

For those of you who are not aware of the mightily underrated 'Alpha experiment' that Mr. Randi undertook a couple of decades ago, note this. He requested the participation of two talented young magicians to take part in a psychic experiment at a university. It could be argued that during the whole of this time, they deceived the scientists by NOT revealing the (non psychic) tactics they had used. They in effect were very Darren Brownesque. They were under instruction however, to reveal immeditely and with clarity, their real methods and from where they were sent - The Randi institute. Not once were they ever asked. They exposed the sloppy science afterwards as was agreed from the start.

Now does the overall nature/purpose of their involvement justify tricking the scientists or is the point (and responsibility) that if the scientists are so gullible as to accept at face value everything that happens and never question it and justify their silence?

Tricky one here, because coming to an experiment for psychic ability sort of assumes that they claim to be psychic doesn't it? If someone comes to cut your lawn following an ad you placed, do you assume they are grass cutters or challenge them and ask if they are plumbers in disguise?

To explain this further, I recommend Dom Jolly, the actor in 'Trigger happy TV' who goes around exposing the stupidity (or over niceness and honesty?) of the British public by playing pranks. Great TV but would you be any different in such scenarios? E.g. He would dress up as a released convict with big arrows on chaingang clothes. He's wearing a stocking over his heads, has a bag labelled 'swag' thrown over his shoulder and plastic chains around his feet. Scene set, he then goes to posh areas and houses and asks passing members of the public to help him over the wall of an expensive house, saying that he's lost his keys. Or go around asking if particular neighbours are in or on holiday. So many respond to him. Do they deserve the humiliation of TV and us laughing or are they somehow justified in the response to such bizarre circumstances? I digress.

I feel that Mr Randi did a great job here and tackled it wonderfully. I also think that if old and tried magic tricks get tired and weirisome and obvious, new ideas should be tried (short of claiming to be psychic unless you are and can prove it).

Wherether you 'appear' to use pseudo science or real magic or genuine levitation (would any magician 'appear' to use false versions of any of these?), then unless you claim real powers, it makes it more up to date and challenging. Moving the goalposts is what magic is about (with the limit set ONLY at the psychic claim) or the viewers will score an open goal - 'oh, how obvious and wearisome' they will say, everytime.

As talented as many of the classic magicians of the past eras are, most would be too outdated to appeal to discerning audiences of today unless they moved with goalposts of today. With Pen and Teller and the masked magician potentially hurting the art and secrecy of illusion a lot, I think that each artiste should be free to present their skills however they wish.