Oi! Derren Brown! NO!

Author
Discussion

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Saturday 5th November 2011
quotequote all
Symbolica said:
carmonk said:
take the last show, where an actor confronted the stooge (er, the guy) in a pub, accused him of being a pervert, was very aggressive with him and told him in no uncertain terms he wanted to fight him. Of course, part of the show, but DB wanted us to believe that the guy believed it to be real. BS! There's no way in a million years a TV show would risk this guy responding (as many people would) and hitting or maybe even glassing this actor, and consequently being prosecuted, and suing in turn. The only possibility was that the bloke was in on it from the beginning.
I did think that at the time TBH. What was the plan if the bloke decided to smash a bottle over the acrots head? Or when the "barman" blatently tried to rip him off, what if he'd said, "Oh fk off!" and walked out? Too many variables.

I saw a live show of his a few years ago and it was fantastic, genuinely blew my mind in parts, but this latest stuff is a long, long way from that...
'Variables' - that's the word I was searching for. Not only are there too many of them, a failure to judge even one of them could prove catastrophic.

Regarding the excuse DB gives on that page linked to above, that he can't lie for legal reasons, anybody remember when he 'predicted' the Lottery draw? He ostensibly made his prediction but wouldn't reveal it before the draw 'for legal reasons'. Again, it's just another element of misdirection he uses to take attention away from the core issue, which is how he does it (and in the case of the lottery it was via a basic split-screen technique).

Just to reiterate, I'm not criticising DB because he's not psychic (being that that is all woo-woo and of course I would never think someone was psychic), but because by effectively cheating he's lowering himself to the same level as the frauds he purports to expose. Taking away the exploitative element, what's the difference between a bloke being fed informating via an earpiece and attributing it to voices from the dead, and DB pretending to hypnotise someone who is only going along with it because the producer told him to?

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Saturday 5th November 2011
quotequote all
carmonk said:
durbster said:
...he couldn't lie about it even if he wanted to for legal reasons.
I know he says that, but it's just another element of his 'misdirection'. You can't be charged with lying on TV unless you defame someone, etc. There's nothing to stop DB making up anything he chooses.
Nope. TV rules about misinformation are strict and designed to prevent viewer deception. They can't pretend something is live when it isn't any more - remember the furore over Jools Holland's new years even show - and I seem to remember ITV getting into trouble for having false callers on a gameshow recently.

That's my understanding at least, so I'm just having a look to see if the Ofcom rules are actually published. I'm quite interested to find out if it's true smile

carmonk said:
...You only have to analyse one of his recent shows to see that the situations demonstrate that it's impossible for the people he uses to be unaware of what's going on. If last night's show didn't convince you of that (why!?) take the last show, where an actor confronted the stooge (er, the guy) in a pub
I haven't seen the last episode yet (I've got it taped). However, it's really not difficult to find people who won't react violently when confronted.

carmonk said:
It's a very different situation, and again the point is not that control is impossible, it's that in DB's case it could not have happened that way.
See to me your posts sound like, "I'm a smart bloke, I can't figure it out so I'm going to get angry about it." smile

The thing is, he's been doing this stuff for years and if he used stooges he'd have been found out long ago. He's made plenty of enemies during his investigative stuff so there's plenty of motive for him to have been found out.

Edited by durbster on Saturday 5th November 22:02


Edited by durbster on Saturday 5th November 22:04

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
He doesn't tell you though, not truthfully, what he says is all part of the scene setting/misdirection to convince YOU it's genuine. A typical example was last week when the people put on the masks so their decisions would be 'anonymous'. Their votes were anonymous anyway. It's just pantomime, the only trick is on the gullible TV viewer. It's like the street magic David Blaine used to do, people were set up by mates who supplied inside info., or he only showed the 20th guess when it worked by chance, not the 19 failures! All tired garbage now.
Yes he does. As Durbster below says. The shows I have seen he gives the various methods he might use at the beginning, and leaves it up to the audience to decide on which one it was. He is quite truthful in that. The one method he is categorical in that he doesn't use is the stooge.

"In a Daily Telegraph article published in 2003 Simon Singh criticised Brown's early TV appearances, arguing that he presented standard magic and mentalism effects—such as the classic Ten Card Poker Deal trick—as genuine psychological manipulation. On Brown's television and live shows he often appears to show the audience how a particular effect was created—claiming to use techniques such as subliminal suggestion, hypnosis, and body language reading. Singh's suggestion is that these explanations are dishonest. Furthermore, Singh took exception to the programme's website being categorised under Channel 4's "Science" section. The mini-site was moved to Entertainment for later series. In his book Tricks of the Mind, Brown writes,
I am often dishonest in my techniques, but always honest about my dishonesty. As I say in each show, 'I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. I happily admit cheating, as it's all part of the game. I hope some of the fun for the viewer comes from not knowing what's real and what isn't. I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems.

Brown claims to never use actors or "stooges" in his work without informing the viewers. In Tricks of the Mind, Brown writes that to use such a ploy is "artistically repugnant and simply unnecessary"; furthermore, he "would not want any participant to watch the TV show when it airs and see a different or radically re-edited version of what he understood to have happened"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown#Criticis...

durbster said:
Nonsense. He uses pretty well established and documented mentalist techniques and is frank about that. There is no point lying about it and, being on TV, he couldn't lie about it even if he wanted to for legal reasons.
Edited by Halb on Sunday 6th November 02:06

freecar

4,249 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Well if Brown himself said it, it must be true!

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
durbster said:
carmonk said:
durbster said:
...he couldn't lie about it even if he wanted to for legal reasons.
I know he says that, but it's just another element of his 'misdirection'. You can't be charged with lying on TV unless you defame someone, etc. There's nothing to stop DB making up anything he chooses.
Nope. TV rules about misinformation are strict and designed to prevent viewer deception. They can't pretend something is live when it isn't any more - remember the furore over Jools Holland's new years even show - and I seem to remember ITV getting into trouble for having false callers on a gameshow recently.
No, these are very different things. The false callers was fraudulent as people spent money on calls without an equal chance of winning the prize. I'd imagine that in some shows there would be implications of stating it's live when it's not, especially when competitions and draws are involved, but I can't see any issues otherwise. In fact, saying a show is live and it not being is one of the things Brown actually did. In his lottery show he used a split-screen technique to 'predict' the balls, which could be argued is not live TV (and it certainly isn't prediction, which he claimed).

Of course, the idea that a person cannot lie about their methods is absurd. If it were true Paul Daniels would be prosecuted for saying 'That's magic', Uri Geller for saying he can bend metal, Derek Acorah for saying ghosts talk to him (he should be prosecuted anyway), and Graham Norton for pretending to be funny. There's nothing whatsoever that stops DB giving exactly what explanation he likes, true or otherwise.

durbster said:
carmonk said:
...You only have to analyse one of his recent shows to see that the situations demonstrate that it's impossible for the people he uses to be unaware of what's going on. If last night's show didn't convince you of that (why!?) take the last show, where an actor confronted the stooge (er, the guy) in a pub
I haven't seen the last episode yet (I've got it taped). However, it's really not difficult to find people who won't react violently when confronted.
I completely disagree. You can never say that. Sit any guy down, give him some beer, then have someone go right up to his face, accuse him of being a pervert and challenge him to a fight and there's no way you can say 100% he won't respond violently. It's inconceivable that a TV production would take that risk, it would be career-ending for all those involved if it went wrong.

durbster said:
carmonk said:
It's a very different situation, and again the point is not that control is impossible, it's that in DB's case it could not have happened that way.
See to me your posts sound like, "I'm a smart bloke, I can't figure it out so I'm going to get angry about it." smile
Not at all. I'm saying I can figure it out, it's easy. It's fake. DB, with his 'misdirection', has convinced many people that he doesn't use camera tricks or stooges and that's why they say they can't figure it out. Toss that aside and what have we got? A simple explanation that fits the facts perfectly.

durbster said:
The thing is, he's been doing this stuff for years and if he used stooges he'd have been found out long ago. He's made plenty of enemies during his investigative stuff so there's plenty of motive for him to have been found out.
He has been found out. Check YouTube for videos of his split-screen fakery on the Lottery predictions if you don't believe me. If you mean people talking then I'd guess that's taken care of with very strict contracts, and those that do talk would be ignored anyway. After all, what proof do they have? The voice of some nobody desperate to be on TV won't carry much weight against DB and his publicity machine. Furthermore, you underestimate the willingness of people to believe. It's ironic that DB, sceptic of all things paranormal, employs very similar methods to get people to believe in his own psychological 'powers'. He doesn't claim these psychological powers are paranormal, of course, but the evidence is they're non-existant. A few years ago I was a staunch defender of DB and was very critical of people who said he was just a trickster and a showman. The evidence has proved me wrong, so I'm happy to correct the record.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
freecar said:
Well if Brown himself said it, it must be true!
Touché...;)

He is very critical of charlatans and people who mislead, such as religious leaders and physics. That's why he says he doesn't use stooges. And why I believe that, because it would fly in the face of all the good work he does.

edit
and do not forget these people are heavily vetted...did they know he doesn't sleep nude and is non violent...of course they do that's why they would have chose him, they are in contact with his gf and whole familybiggrin

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
carmonk said:
He has been found out. Check YouTube for videos of his split-screen fakery on the Lottery predictions if you don't believe me.
That's not 'finding him out' though is it, he didn't seriously claim it was anything other than a conjuring trick.

Melvin Udall

73,668 posts

254 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
There is a huge difference between a 'Paul Daniels magic show' and the people he is active against. I don't see the issue with his shows at all.

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
carmonk said:
He has been found out. Check YouTube for videos of his split-screen fakery on the Lottery predictions if you don't believe me.
That's not 'finding him out' though is it, he didn't seriously claim it was anything other than a conjuring trick.
Yes he did, he actually spent an hour explaining how it was due to 'the wisdom of crowds' when the actual explanation (camera trick) means that anybody could have done it. No psychology, no sleight of hand, no stage magic, no mindful insights, just a couple of cameras and a patient editor. I'm not saying he's done anything wrong, what I'm saying is that all the hoohah about him being a great psychologist or even a great magician is bumph. It's misdirection, as he himself claims. In reality he's a good showman with no more psychological insight than Mystic Meg at the end of the pier.

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Melvin Udall said:
There is a huge difference between a 'Paul Daniels magic show' and the people he is active against. I don't see the issue with his shows at all.
I don't have an issue with his shows, it's the inference of his methods that's troublesome. For example, up until recently if a medium claimed to be able to achieve X in a seance, I'd point to DB doing a similar thing and ask why anybody would think it was paranormal if DB could do it using his mind-games. But seeing as the evidence now points to him using camera tricks and getting people to play along, that defense is no longer available. And it's ironic, because he's now lost any leverage from which he can himself criticise those who purport to be paranormal or magical, other than from a moral standpoint (and even that's debatable).

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
carmonk said:
Yes he did, he actually spent an hour explaining how it was due to 'the wisdom of crowds'
But nobody was expected to take that seriously

Melvin Udall

73,668 posts

254 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
carmonk said:
Yes he did, he actually spent an hour explaining how it was due to 'the wisdom of crowds'
But nobody was expected to take that seriously
Yeah. I go into these shows knowing he is fking around with st, just like any other magician plays with misdirection, sleight of hand, etc. Randi was a magician, but hos shows are in no way any detracting from the skeptic work he did.

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Dr Jekyll said:
carmonk said:
Yes he did, he actually spent an hour explaining how it was due to 'the wisdom of crowds'
But nobody was expected to take that seriously
Really? Is the explanation of 'wisdom of crowds' more outrageous than messages from the dead (mediums) or spoons turning to liquid through the power of Cosmic Intelligences (Geller)? I suspect that a great many people believed that explanation and why shouldn't they? Of course it doesn't stand up to analysis but most people don't pay that much attention to a TV show. indeed, should we have expected the secret to lie with a camera trick that anybody could have pulled off? Obviously not, or nobody would have watched it. When Penn and Teller catch bullets or Paul Daniels does a card trick we know it's not magic but equally we know there's no CGI and we know that not any old Tom Dick or Harry off the street could just walk on stage and do it. What's the difference between Uri Geller manually bending a spoon and explaining it through the powers of the Cosmic Masters and DB using a basic camera trick to pretend to predict the lottery numbers then claiming the wisdom of crowds. Take away his alleged ability to connect with people, his hypnotism and psychological mind games and all you have left is a showman, which are 10 a penny. There's little now to separate him from the woo-woo merchants he purports to expose.

Edited by carmonk on Sunday 6th November 17:03

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Melvin Udall said:
Dr Jekyll said:
carmonk said:
Yes he did, he actually spent an hour explaining how it was due to 'the wisdom of crowds'
But nobody was expected to take that seriously
Yeah. I go into these shows knowing he is fking around with st, just like any other magician plays with misdirection, sleight of hand, etc. Randi was a magician, but hos shows are in no way any detracting from the skeptic work he did.
But you're missing the point. Say someone moves an object and claims it's due to telekinesis. Randi comes along, moves the object and then reveals it's done with sleight of hand. That proves there's no need to invoke the paranormal in the initial instance. But what if DB had turned up and simply used a camera trick or CGI? That wouldn't have proved anything at all.

Melvin Udall

73,668 posts

254 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
DB isn't trying to disprove the paranormal,in his shows. It's a 'magic show', like all other magic shows. It's to entertain, and amuse.

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Melvin Udall said:
DB isn't trying to disprove the paranormal,in his shows. It's a 'magic show', like all other magic shows. It's to entertain, and amuse.
He's done a great many shows that do try and disprove the paranormal, he did a themed series of 6 episodes plus the one-off seance shows, etc. In all these instances he's putting across the message that there's no need to invoke the paranormal because he can do much the same thing. What I'm saying is that I'm now questioning how much of that he actually did replicate in similar environments and circumstance, based on the evidence from his recent shows, which fair enough don't purport to disprove anything. If I catch a woo-woo merchant cheating then I'm entitled to question everything that person does or says, I'm sure you'd agree. So it seems only fair to apply the same criteria to DB. It's not that I dislike him, or that I'm trying to prove a point, it's simply being fair to both perspectives. Indeed, I was probably DB's staunchest defender up until a couple of years ago, so in saying all this I'm admitting I was totally wrong.




Jesus - this site and its editing!!!!

Edited by carmonk on Sunday 6th November 17:13

Melvin Udall

73,668 posts

254 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Well, I think there is a very distinct difference between someone demonstrating what can be done using rational, and documented methods, as a show, or demonstration, and someone who claims to have real telepathic, psychic, telekinetic powers, etc. there is a distinct line between entertainment, and exploitation, and fraud.

DB is firmly in one camp.

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Melvin Udall said:
Well, I think there is a very distinct difference between someone demonstrating what can be done using rational, and documented methods, as a show, or demonstration, and someone who claims to have real telepathic, psychic, telekinetic powers, etc. there is a distinct line between entertainment, and exploitation, and fraud.

DB is firmly in one camp.
So aside from the foul practice of mediumship, why would you say one is better than the other? You could even make a case that DB's duplicity is more damaging than say, Uri Geller's. Whilst Uri Geller spreads silliness and nonsense, DB takes a legitimate science and essentially pollutes it with untruths. He's talked a great deal about aspects of psychology and the mind that sound on the surface to be viable and educational, yet I'm now thinking that some or all of them are simply not true. Surely that is wrong, regardless of the entertainment value.

Melvin Udall

73,668 posts

254 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
No... Because when Uri Geller bends a present spoon, or Popov hears a voice in his ear, they do so with the intention of making people believe they have supernatural ability. DB does not. He explicitly states that he does all his stuff by misdirection, sleight of hand, cold reading, etc. At no point does he say he does anything supernatural. How shows are exactly that, shows. He used a split screen for the lottery trick? So what? It's a magic show. We know it's not real, and we are being duped or fooled in some way, but that's why it is a show. I'm not aware of any stooges still.

carmonk

Original Poster:

7,910 posts

186 months

Sunday 6th November 2011
quotequote all
Melvin Udall said:
No... Because when Uri Geller bends a present spoon, or Popov hears a voice in his ear, they do so with the intention of making people believe they have supernatural ability. DB does not. He explicitly states that he does all his stuff by misdirection, sleight of hand, cold reading, etc. At no point does he say he does anything supernatural. How shows are exactly that, shows. He used a split screen for the lottery trick? So what? It's a magic show. We know it's not real, and we are being duped or fooled in some way, but that's why it is a show. I'm not aware of any stooges still.
Of course he doesn't claim to be supernatural, but why is it OK for him to claim one thing and do another when we criticise Uri Geller and his ilk for much the same thing? DB claims that he achieves his results through 'magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship'. Nowhere does he say 'camera tricks' or 'CGI' or 'strictly worded contracts'. Ask anybody what DB's selling point is and I bet they come back with something about how he's an expert in hypnotism, psychological manipulation and feats of memory. My point is that I no longer believe this is true. The reason he's as popular as he is, is because of his claims. If he'd have marketed himself as another magician, or a showman, he wouldn't even have got a show on E4. It's because of his very slick claims, and even slicker promotional material, that he's achieved his notoriety. Remove those and all you have is a second-rate showman.

The point about the split screen is that anybody could do it. I could do it. It requires no skilled sleight of hand, no psychological techniques or impressive mental feats. Indeed, all he did was stand there and present the show. There's a big distinction between using the tricks of the trade and blatant misrepesentation. One is a skill and the other is essentially cheating. If Randi revealed he'd done his spoonbending trick by CGI, would you be disappointed? I would, because it would show that he didn't know how Geller did it. By using the skills of sleight of hand he demonstrated that it was physically possible without invoking the paranormal, or any sort of post-production trickery.