|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
joesquire New user 89 Posts |
Without doubt, Derren Brown is the person who turned my interest in magic into an obsession. He portrayed a more believable magician (I use the term loosely) - someone who's exploits maybe I could replicate for real... with enough practice.
Although most of that doe-eyed wonder has now gone, it has been replaced by an even greater emotion - a respect for the man's creativity and sense of theatre. Nonetheless, it comes with a certain quandry. How do I feel about Derren's pseudo-explanations for how he achieves his feats? As a layman, I believed one could truly predict how many fingers a spectator was holding up, just by looking into their eyes and watching their body language. Now, I don't really have a problem with this, however Derren takes issue with people using trickery to alter other people's belief systems. For example, psychics using Cold Reading to make people believe they are speaking to dead loved ones. Or the "Church" using guilt to control and keep members loyal. Yet Derren uses his own trickery resulting in the creation of certain residual beliefs in those who he interacts with, and those who watch his shows. Consider the following examples: Example 1: Hypnosis The Heist - Derren States "Hypnosis can't make anyone do anything against their will." The Assassin - Derren claims to use Hypnosis to make someone kill someone else and not remember it Also, in one of his TV shows, he uses mirroring to gain "rapport" and "hypnotises" them to go and steal something from an electronics store Example 2: Guilt The Guilt Trip - Derren claims the Church uses guilt to control its members. Derren aims to "prove" this by using guilt to make someone confess to something he didn't do. However: 1) The subject was made not to remember the night in question 2) The subject only said he thought he _might_ have done it based on the "evidence" he'd seen 3) We don't know what was said to the subject while under hypnosis 4) Large parts of the story appeared to have been cut out anyway 5) In any case, "Guilt" doesn't appear to have been a motivating factor in the "confession" Example 3: Luck The Secret of Luck - Derren's finale includes a man previously not open to pursuing opportunities bet his life savings on the roll of a die. The man wins and the moral of the story is, "luck" is simply a product of how open we are to, and how aggressively we pursue the opportunities presented to us. However: 1) It's fairly safe to assume the roll of the die was rigged 2) The show asks us to believe this man put forth his life savings of his own volition believing it to be a truly 1 in 6 chance of winning 3) The show asks us to believe that this was the largest wager offered (despite being "only" a few thousand pounds) - surely there would have been some rich guy who would have been prepared to buy his way onto the show? Example 4: Mob Mentality The Game Show - Derren attempts to show that when people get in a big mob and put masks on, they become malicious and hurtful. In reality: 1) We never know whether the votes on the screen are "real" polls or not 2) The audience never actually votes for anything that sinister - and certainly nothing they don't expect Derren to "undo" at the end of the show. I.e. sure, they smash his TV, but most would assume Derren will replace it with a flatscreen 3) The horrible ending, where he gets hit by a car has nothing to do with what the audience actually voted for 4) The very set-up encourages people to "play along" with the Group mentality and help Derren prove his point - I don't think anyone really expected any lasting harm to come to this person. This is evidenced by the audience's reaction at the end of the show. In summary, most (if not all) of Derren's experiments have a lot more going on behind the scenes than we are meant to think. Indeed, if we were able to see the filming of these shows, almost certainly, the audience would take away a different conclusion to the one Derren presents. Now, for example, Mob Mentality is a real thing. You can see it everywhere and it's really sinister. But Derren's show uses some tricky production to present a conclusion that hasn't really been proved (by the show, anyway). Now, that's fine since we all know about mob mentality, and we want people to be aware of it. But does the end justify the means? What about where Derren takes on the Church or Naturopaths or even Hypnosis. People have wildly differing opinions on these subjects. Most of us probably agree with Derren's opinions and the messages he's trying to get across. But where do you stand on using deception, Post-Production edits or even simple "magic tricks" to promote those messages? |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
But where do you stand on using deception, Post-Production edits or even simple "magic tricks" to promote those messages?
I think Derren uses all of the above. And then some.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
Todd Robbins V.I.P. New York 2922 Posts |
Derren is a performer that creates a suspension of disbelief when he performers. He might give a pseudo explanation, but he is just an actor playing the part of a magicians. A psychic will use trickery to ask for your belief. Derren deals in theatrical art, the psychic deals in religion.
|
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
The area is much more gray than that.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-02-06 19:09, Steve_Mollett wrote:
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
joesquire New user 89 Posts |
I guess my point is that Derren asks for his audience's belief too.
|
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-02-07 06:38, joesquire wrote: I don't get that sense watching his shows and reading his books. Unless you're talking about him asking his audience/readers to be rational.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
joesquire New user 89 Posts |
Yeah, it's his interpretation of what "rational" is.
Nobody thinks they're being "irrational" |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-02-10 19:04, joesquire wrote:
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
Curtis Alexander New user 74 Posts |
I have often asked myself these same questions, for the same reasons you said...when I was a laymen I really believed (some) of these things could be done and weren't just "tricks."
I don't think what he does is unethical. He is essentially doing what all magicians do, but he is a better showman than most so we really buy into his explanations. Also to his credit is that sometimes he really is doing what he says he is doing, and in all of his shows he gives the disclaimer that some of what he does is pure trickery. |
|||||||||
Curtis Alexander New user 74 Posts |
I think what Derren does is different than a church manipulating someone's beliefs or a psychic claiming to talk to the dead. For one, those people are seriously trying to sell you on these explanations, whereas Brown is an entertainer and everyone knows that. People know that he is a magician and he makes this clear at the start of his shows.
It is also important to note that many people believe that Derren Brown claims things that he doesn't. Most of what he does comes with no real explanation but lay audiences misremember it and think he says he is using hypnosis or NLP. |
|||||||||
Adam Fraise New user 60 Posts |
I have no problem with Derren Browns approach. I saw him perform recently and he packed a large theatre. As everyone was leaving the buzz was palpable. Although it was obvious that he wasnt being honest about much of what was going on, he didn't encourage people to think anything that could be dangerous to themselves or others. I don't see his dishonesty as being any greater than when DC "walked through" the Great Wall of China. The big difference was that people were, IMO, much more entertained by DB.
|
|||||||||
Horatio New user 85 Posts |
I think that there's a big difference between David Copperfield "walking through" the Great Wall of China, when people know that they are seeing the 'impossible' and Derren Brown doing his teddy bear painting or BMX selecting routines when he actively puts false explanations forward as part of the deception. David Copperfield let people watch something and make their own assumptions about how it could be done (an illusion, but not a lie), whilst Derren Brown may appear to be offering his act as evidence for the effectiveness of NLP. Derren's disclaimer at the beginning of the show does little to address this deception. To me, it's a bit like comparing Paul Daniels with Uri Geller. I'm not saying that he is wrong to take this approach to entertainment, just that there are different levels of dishonesty.
|
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
I think Derren's approach is better.
Ambiguity is his strength. People, adults with strong educational backgrounds, will believe in supernatural things regardless, Derren even disclaims any and all supernatural ability, yet they STILL BELIEVE he is. That isn't his fault, it's theirs. He goes out of his way sometimes to explain his approach but 'for those who believe...' you know.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
Horatio New user 85 Posts |
If they believe that Derren has simply supernatural powers, then it's pretty clear to most people that he has been very up front about not having such powers. If on the other hand, some people feel led to believe that NLP/ muscle reading etc give him far more influence/ information than they are actually capable of, then that is his "fault". It's exactly the impression that he intends to give.
Derren often hides the unknown behind something that people think they know a bit about (eg NLP), so the nature of the unknown is disguised. This could perhaps put it under Rumsfeld's category of 'unknown unknowns'. Copperfield walking through a wall didn't involve offering any kind of Trojan horse for the secrets to hide in. The unknown was not in disguise, so perhaps this could be described as a 'known unknown'. Either way, the extra layer of deception in lots of Derren's effects leaves me with a feeling that his illusions are less honest. Nevertheless, great to watch! Derren may well dislike people being misled into going to 'psychics' who are less capable than they claim, but I am curious about how many people have been persuaded to invest in some kind of NLP involvement due to the suggestion of Derren's material. I'm not trying to judge which is better or worse, but in both cases, some false belief is being created. |
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Then you should read his book 'Tricks Of The Mind'.
He himself never mentions NLP in his shows, others attribute that to him. He asks readers NOT to buy into the whole NLP Seminar thing, especially those invoking his name. Read the book, don't take my word for it.... Anyway, as I said, 'for those who believe...'
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
Horatio New user 85 Posts |
I have read Tricks of the Mind and I agree with you that for readers of this, he has covered himself on this point. However, not everyone who watches his shows will also read his books. Some of the suggestion that he uses is viewed by many as being NLP-like, when in many cases it seems to me that his ability to use NLP-like techniques to influence his volunteer is often the suggestion that he is trying to make in order to further hide how he really achieved the effect. For many, this may be taken as evidence to support NLP, just as Uri Geller's performances were taken by many as evidence of psychic abilities.
|
|||||||||
Pakar Ilusi Inner circle 5777 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-06-12 12:28, Horatio wrote: And that is my point... For those who believe... Derren is open about it, but many choose not to hear. Especially if you're going to go so far as to 'believe' anything from entertainment ( ), you'd think they'd look for all his writings and videos before making any conclusions. If they don't thoroughly think it through, it isn't Derren's fault. It's theirs imho....
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
|||||||||
markmiller Special user 731 Posts |
When it comes to some believing in pyschic abilities as a result of a magician's work, there is a definite ethical difference between Derren and Uri. Derren does use disclaimers,is an entertainer, says he has no special powers, and offers somewhat real explanations for his effects. Unlike today with his TV contests and association with magicians, at the height of Uri's career in the 1970's - he claimed NOT to be an entertainer or performer of any kind and that he positively did NOT use any magician's tricks, secret methods, or psychological ploys, and instead he insisted he had highly developed special senses and powers, and pointed to the scientific (?) testing that had been done on him as absolute proof.
|
|||||||||
Horatio New user 85 Posts |
Quote:
On 2013-06-12 13:05, Pakar Ilusi wrote: Couldn't the same be said about terms and conditions on the internet? The information's there, but relatively few choose to find out what's happening with their data. Or genetically modified products used in foods? It's a safe bet that there are more people who would choose not no eat GM foods than there are people who research beyond the label. If somebody doesn't think through a financial product, when it is not their area of expertise, would they be wrong to blame the salesperson who didn't explain it to them? Even if the problem that they came to face was mentioned in the information pack that they were given? It's not generally considered fair to sell products and then wash your hands of the outcome of the sales just because the customers didn't educate themselves well enough. The subprime mortgage situation in the USA and PPI in the UK are examples here. As for "believing anything from entertainment", isn't that how people get their information these days? John Stewart plays a big part in delivering news in the USA, and he probably conveys the facts more accurately than a number of tabloids. Some news programmes in the UK appear to have been influenced heavily by both tabloids and entertainment shows. Television documentaries quite often appear to me to be more interested in compelling story telling than getting into the detail that I think ought to be expected of a documentary. Even serious news is often dressed up as entertainment, so it's not hard to see how people could confuse the two. In combination with this, there are many people working overtime to the extent that they don't always have enough hours in the day to check all their facts when they're not at work. If people don't think things through for themselves, then maybe they can't. Aren't those the people that Derren is trying to protect when he debunks some of these 'psychic' groups? |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Derren Brown influencing spectator's belief systems (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |