This is just a magicians stunt, right?

[BTox]

Surely no one could be that stupid to believe he can psychically read where the bullet is.




russian roulette (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=4&u=/nm/20031003/od_nm/odd_britain_roulette_dc)

[Brown]

I've seen performers do this sort of thing before, and on television, too. One fellow who saw a performer perform a stunt like this said, "Oh, for crying out loud, he can see whether or not there's going to be a bullet in the chamber by looking at the cylinder!" (Whether this was how the stunt was actually performed or not, I don't know.)

Anyway, it seemed like a pretty lame trick to both of us. It was too melodramatic. Now, it's possible that Brown (no relation) has come up with a new twist on the trick, but I suspect it would still be a pretty lame trick.

[Pyrrho]

Pretty stupid trick, unless you're using fake bullets.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Pretty stupid trick, unless you're using fake bullets. Yeah, I saw one guy who did this trick who (probably)used fake bullets. The basic idea behind his "trick" was that the gun would be loaded with real bullets and blanks. So that the guy loading the gun (the obligatory local police officer) did not know whether he was loading the gun with blanks or real bullets, the blanks and the bullets looked exactly the same. My immediate suspicion was that all of the bullets, including the supposedly "real" ones, were blanks. Nothing that followed swayed me from that suspicion.

The magician had the gun fired at himself. He was unhurt, because there was a blank in the chamber. The magician then "proved" that the next bullet was real by aiming the gun at a balloon and firing. The balloon popped! (Of course, the balloon popped just a split second before the magician actually fired, but what the hey.)

Lame, lame, lame.

[BTox]

I've seen a similar trick where a magician marks a bullet, puts it in a gun (muzzle loader), has an assistant shoot the bullet through a piece of glass, shattering it, then the magician "catches" the bullet in his teeth. Of course, the trick is the bullet was palmed, placed in the mouth, and the only thing shot was a blank. The glass is broken electronically via a wire on the trigger.

[Ravenwood]

Originally posted by Brown

The magician had the gun fired at himself. He was unhurt, because there was a blank in the chamber. The magician then "proved" that the next bullet was real by aiming the gun at a balloon and firing. The balloon popped! (Of course, the balloon popped just a split second before the magician actually fired, but what the hey.)

Lame, lame, lame.

The wad from the blank should have popped the balloon on it's own.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Pretty stupid trick, unless you're using fake bullets.
I remember reading once about a rodeo clown who was killed by a fake shotgun cartridge. The wadding went straight into his heart.

[Ravenwood]

anybody remember Jon Eric Hexum's Death? Killed by a revolver blank...

[xouper]

Pet peeve warning -

BTox: russian roulette (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=4&u=/nm/20031003/od_nm/odd_britain_roulette_dc)From that story:

Asked what need the show would fill, a station spokeswoman said: "Lots of television is not about need but about what will make entertaining and stimulating programing." Good for the station spokeswoman. Why do some people think "need" is a relevant criteria? Requiring someone to justify "need" is not a notion of a free society.

[/rant]

[JamesM]

Originally posted by BTox
Surely no one could be that stupid to believe he can psychically read where the bullet is.
Brown's schtick is not psychic readings, but mentalism. The impression he gives is not that he's doing 'magic', he makes no bones about it being a trick. What I think is quite clever about what he does is that everything is presented as if he is a master manipulator of the human mind, an expert in body language and obscure psychological truths that allows him to 'read' minds and control people.
Not being a magician, I have no idea which of his tricks (if any) really are about psychological manipulation and which are more traditional efforts, but he's managed to carve himself a distinctive niche and get some magic on TV, and on Channel 4, no less, which is an achievement. And it's pretty entertaining.

edited for formatting

[Bikewer]

There's a show that's been airing on one of those "discovery" channels on cable, called "secrets of magic". Pretty good, it gives the history of famous tricks, comments by current working magicians, and so forth. Commentators include Penn and Teller, as you might imagine.
They did a whole segment on the "bullet catch" trick, and included a number of accidental fatalities over the years.


If Hexum's death by blank was odd, consider the odd circumstances of Jason Lee's death while filming the Crow.

The script called for the bad guy to load his .44 magnum revolver.

The actor did so, using dummy cartridges, as per normal proceedure. After the scene, the weapon was unloaded by the firearms tech and reloaded with blanks, as the next scene involved him shooting at the "Crow".
The tech was apparently incompetent or unobservant (or both) since he did not notice that one of the bullets had come out of one of the dummy cartridges, and was lodged in the cylinder's "throat" area.
The weapon was reloaded with blanks.
The shooting scene was started, and the actor fired several rounds, one of which was the bullet-over-blank. The blank cartridge drove the loose bullet fatally into Lee's body.

Odd stuff. What are the chances of the right chamber "coming up?" (well, 1 in 6...) Or, that the actor would actually hit Lee?''
(it's not like they're really aiming, in most cases)
Or that the gun didn't blow up. Blank powder is extremely "fast", in that it must produce a loud report and muzzle flash without any projectile. It's occasionaly happened that such rounds have been made up by foolish or ill-informed reloaders, with tragic results.
I don't know if the lawsuits have been settled yet.

[davidhorman]

The shooting scene was started, and the actor fired several rounds, one of which was the bullet-over-blank. The blank cartridge drove the loose bullet fatally into Lee's body.

Odd stuff. What are the chances of the right chamber "coming up?" (well, 1 in 6...)

Not 1 in 6, if he fired several rounds. It'd be (number of rounds fired) in 6.

I'm sure I've seen Derren Brown do this trick before. He went through, click click click, and then fired the live bullet through a piece of glass. Or maybe it was Simon Drake, sounds like the sort of thing he'd do.

David

[Bikewer]

Hehe- now you know why I don't gamble....

Cartridges are easy enough to rig; you can even deactivate apparently-live primers easily enough.


I'm trying to remember the details of one of the other accidental deaths of a magician doing the bullet-catch trick.

He used, as I recall, a muzzle-loading rifle. The rifle was gaffed in such a way that the powder charge and bullet went into a false barrell, while the barrell fired during the performance was a phoney, firing through the ramrod hole. (the discharge, with lots of black-powder smoke, couldn't be seen by the audience.

Evidently, over the years, sufficient powder "leaked" into the actual barrell of the weapon, and a flashover ignited it, propelling the real bullet to the unfortunate fellow's doom.

Penn and Teller do a nifty turn where they fire at each other!

[Peter Morris]

"I'm trying to remember the details of one of the other accidental deaths of a magician doing the bullet-catch trick."

Chung Ling Soo.

[Dazza]

I saw this done last night on channel 4 - it was brilliant television.

The hour long show consisted mainly of Derren Brown choosing the person who would choose what chamber to put the bullet in.

He started with 100 people (selected from 12,000 applicants) and perfomed a number of mind games or tests to whittle them down.

As he did that he did a number of his 'tricks' such as predicting what sort of face one of the contestants would draw on a pad and also what colour chair each of 5 finalists would choose to sit in. Like someone who posted above I don't know how much of this is genuine psychology and how much in conjuring but it was entertaining and impressive stuff.

The tension built as he chose the final person. He asked them to think of any word and by looking at their eyes on a video monitor (apparantly) he wrote down in full view what he thought they were thinking. He was right or close on three out of the five if I remember rightly. He then chose his finalist.

The live section of the show saw the two men sit at a table with a revolver in front of them. The armourer came in and loaded one live cartridge into the revolver and fired it at a sandbag. A hole appeared and a blackened cartridge was emptied out of the revolver.

The Volunteer then chose one cartridge and the armourer left.

The volunteer had checked (rather quickly to be honest) that there were no hidden cameras under the table. He then took the revolver and placed a cartridge in one of the chnmbers while holding both under the table so that Derren couldn't see. The chambers were numbered 1 to 6 and Derren told the volunteer to repeat the number to himself over and over agin to fasten it in his mind - and to double check that he had loaded the right one.

Then (still under the table) the volunteer loaded a sleeve onto the revolver which blocked the view of the chambers from either end of the gun and was asked to check that there was nothing visible. Then he put the gun back on the table.

Derren gave him a nice speach about how it wouldn't be his fault if Derren blew his head off and then sent the volunteer to sit behind a bullet proof screen. He then asked the volunteer to count slowly from 1 to 6 saying 'Don't try to help me or give me a clue. If you do that you will confuse me and its very important that I should not be confused'

After that Derren said "I think Chamber 3 is safe" and he turned the revolver to that chamber. After a pause he put the pistol to his head and pulled the trigger.

click

Then he paused again and then picked up the gun and pulled the trigger

click

More of a pause and then he put the gun to his head. Looked unceetain and aimed the gun at the sandbags. He flicnched as he pulled the trigger

click

So he'd been wrong about that. He now paused for a full 2 minutes at least. No music, no commentary no drumroll, no movement. Electric.

Then he picked the gun up really quickly put it to his head and fired

click

He aimed at the sandbags

Bang.

He gets up and hugs the volunteer. The credits roll.

I've described it in detail to make a few points:

1. Derren never claims to be psychic. He explains how he does what he does (sometimes) and its always based on psychology.

2. This might have been a magic trick rather than a stunt - I have no clue. I'd be interested to hear views

3. As television it was everything magic has ceased to be. It had a real sense of danger. If Derren was acting his tension before firing the last time he was acting extremely well. I couldn't sit down for most of the show. Its a while since any magician had that effect. It knocked David Blaine into a cocked hat.

Altogther I'd say well done Channel 4 for a brilliant show. Whether it was real or fake, I don't much care. It was certainly remarkable.

There were press stories about how irresponsible it was and how it might encourage others to try the stunt. After every commercial break the announcer stressed the 'don't try this at home' line. You would hope that would be self evident. There was nothing casual about the way Derren did this it was played absolutely straight and seriously.

As an aside, the whole thing was filmed in a secret location overseas. The stunt itself is a clear violation of our gun laws!

[AlienX]

Well what can I say - I watched the last 15 minutes with my jaw on the floor. I was gemuinely concerned that it wasn't a trick, everyone watching (apart from a few sickos) were hoping it was a safe trick and not his judgment / suggestion.

Weve seen him do similar stunts but never with such a high level of danger (well no danger - apart from arrest when he was conning money off betting staff in a bookies).

Apparently there was a slight delay between the show being aired (semi live so to speak) in case he blew his head off.

He did look scared to me - none of your copperfield squirming around etc - just sitting there looking like a guy who could possibly blow his brains out at any point.

You watch most magicians basically knowing 100% they are pretty safe - but this was different, it just seemed so raw and real - no smoke or scantily clad women - two men in a barn and a gun.

When the odds were down to 3:1 as he clicked round the chambers and he sat there deciding if he was going to do it.. well trick or not.. I was terrified. Never have i ever felt any level of fear like it watching any trick - I suppose if you convinced yourself it was a trick right from the start then it wouldn't have been scary at all.

I think the main thing is it's simply a modification of other mind tricks he's done - it's what gave it a high level of credibility - was it the same thing though?, the only difference was he vetted his "bullet selector" for how easily he said he could read them - this isn't normal as who cares if he gets it wrong in his other tricks- they can edit that out ;-)

Weve all seen escapology stuff thats very dangerous and tbh all the fuss about how dangerous the trick was.. well dead is dead irrispective of how it happens. Gun to the head - or failing to get out of a straight jacket before a roller coaster hits you...

As for Blane - get out of you box and go home.. nobody cares or is impressed, you have been seriously upstaged this time m8y.

AX

[davidhorman]

1. Derren never claims to be psychic. He explains how he does what he does (sometimes) and its always based on psychology.

He claims it's based on psychology.

2. This might have been a magic trick rather than a stunt - I have no clue. I'd be interested to hear views

The local police here in Jersey (where Brown did the stunt to avoid UK gun laws) issued a statement to say they wouldn't have let him go ahead if they weren't satisfied that there was no chance of anyone being hurt - read into that what you will ;)

David

[Dazza]

yes I saw that.

Once the adreneline of watching the programme has passed you're left with the evidence that it was just trickery. Part of me feels really let down. The rest of me says hey, it was a great TV programme. As long as the bogus psychology claims are debunked afterwards - and everyone realises it was a trick - then fair enough.

But if Derren is exposed as a magician hiding behind fake psychology what does he do next? Climb into a box? His Home page doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Hmmm.,

[Stevie -G-]

I don't think that I am easily tricked (although I could be wrong), and am aware of some of the psychological techniques Derren Brown uses. I have also been to see him perform live.

Every ounce of me says that what he did was genuine. He has "guessed" numbers correctly on a huge number of occasions, and although he does not always perform perfectly when he performs live, he is good enough for me to believe his Russian roulette was genuine, with a real bullet.

Two of the techniques he uses to make his "guesses" include:

Reading small movements in the lips, neck, and other parts of the face when the subject is saying that word over and over in their head - I suppose it is natural that when you say a word in your head, you also make some movements that you would make when saying it out loud. It was notable that he asked his subject to do this for the Russian roulette, and paid very close attention to his face when the subject repeated it.

When the subject counts out loud, there can also be tell-tale signs, such as hesitations, emphasis on some words, etc. If you listen back to this occasion, you can sense a relaxation on "3,4,5,6", suggesting the bullet was in chambers 1 or 2.

So, I think DB guessed it was in 1 or 2, and so safely started with chamber 3. He also said out loud, several times "I believe chamber 3 is safe". I think he did this as an extra safety check. The guy who loaded the bullet was probably instructed beforehand to intervene at this stage if DB had guessed wrong. DB said on a radio interview that he would rather face humilitation than death, and so was prepared to withdraw if he wasn't 100%confident.

Having had this unspoken confirmation, I think the rest of the show was choreographed to maximise the effect. He shot the empty chamber toward the sand bag to trick the audience into thinking that he wasn't sure, and build up the tension more. The look of fear on his face looked genuine at the time, but perhaps not. The 2-minute pause was also done for effect.

I think he is an incredibly impressive performer, and that he does not trick his audience - he is just extremely skilled at what he does.

It was brilliant, terrifying TV.

Stevie G.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Dazza
yes I saw that.

Once the adreneline of watching the programme has passed you're left with the evidence that it was just trickery. Part of me feels really let down. The rest of me says hey, it was a great TV programme. As long as the bogus psychology claims are debunked afterwards - and everyone realises it was a trick - then fair enough.

But if Derren is exposed as a magician hiding behind fake psychology what does he do next? Climb into a box? His Home page doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Hmmm.,
I agree that there was almost certainly a trick behind the Russian Roulette stunt. I think he uses a combination of psychology and tricks in most of his stuff. But, so what if he makes "pyschology" his USP? He's a showman, an entertainer - can't we allow him his patter?

BTW it looks like his website is under development - he has quite a lot on the Channel 4 site connected to his Mind Control (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/M/mindcontrol/index.html) series.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Bikewer
If Hexum's death by blank was odd, consider the odd circumstances of Jason Lee's death while filming the Crow.

Brandon Lee just to clarify. Jason (Scott?) Lee who played Bruce Lee in his life story several years back is still alive and kicking.

[Dazza]

Originally posted by Stevie -G-
I don't think that I am easily tricked (although I could be wrong), and am aware of some of the psychological techniques Derren Brown uses. I have also been to see him perform live.

Every ounce of me says that what he did was genuine.
Stevie G.

I would love you to be right about this.

Maybe we should track down the volunteer - I'm sure he's an online sort of guy - and see if he can shed any light on it.

[Ipecac]

People. It was a trick. At no time was this guy's life in danger. There are so many possibilities for trickery, how can you seriously believe for even a minute that he was in real danger?

That doesn't mean it wasn't a good show, tense and exciting. But it was a trick.

[Archangel]

Originally posted by Ipecac
People. It was a trick. At no time was this guy's life in danger. There are so many possibilities for trickery, how can you seriously believe for even a minute that he was in real danger?


That would be because, whenever someone is using a gun with blanks or "real" ammunition there is a danger.
As someone pointed out above Brandon Lee died during the filming of The Crow from a "blank", where there should have been no danger to his life.

[The Mighty Thor]

BBC Online has an article about Derren Brown and 'mindreading'. I think Derren is a very impressive performer and has that 'creepy' look about him. He is a good magician and gives the impression that some of his tricks are 'close to the edge'.

He's much more entertaining than Blaine.

I do not, however, consider this latest stunt to be worthy of him. Looks like he is cashing-in on the current Blaine boredom factor by doing something supposedly 'spectacular'.

But I suppose publicity is the name of the game for all these guys.

From the BBC Article:

Professor Chris French, of London's Goldsmith's college - a specialist in investigating paranormal beliefs and "experiences" - says mind-reading is the stuff of fantasy.

"If Derren Brown really has successfully developed techniques to discern the contents of people's minds in the way that he claims, he has single-handedly achieved more than the collective attempts of psychologists over many decades."

He says the stunt may have more in common with the "cold reading" techniques typically associated with psychics and mediums.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3169044.stm

malc

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Archangel
That would be because, whenever someone is using a gun with blanks or "real" ammunition there is a danger.
There was no real ammunition involved, and no blanks either. At no time was his life in danger. It was a trick. He didn't fire a gun, he didn't play Russian roulette and he didn't read anybody's mind or sub-consciously suggest anything to anybody.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
BBC Online has an article about Derren Brown and 'mindreading'. I think Derren is a very impressive performer and has that 'creepy' look about him. He is a good magician and gives the impression that some of his tricks are 'close to the edge'.

He's much more entertaining than Blaine.

I do not, however, consider this latest stunt to be worthy of him. Looks like he is cashing-in on the current Blaine boredom factor by doing something supposedly 'spectacular'.

But I suppose publicity is the name of the game for all these guys.

From the BBC Article:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3169044.stm

malc

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Derren Brown. He has never claimed to be able to "discern peoples' minds", or use any woo woo nonsense. What he does say is that he uses some of the more predictable behaviour of people in some of his work. Some of it seems to have some psychological underpinning.

Some of the better examples I've seen that seem to support this include the trick where he persuades a cashier to pay out on a losing betting slip, or the elaborate stunt where he subconsiously plants images and words into the minds of two advertising creatives.

Beyond that he obviously uses a range of traditional magician's techniques as well. But that is no secret.

[AlienX]

Yeah I think it's higly likely that there was a safety net involved.
To be fair to Derren ... who wouldn't. Basically if you were the person who loaded the gun and Derren selected the loaded chamber to begin with (he said aloud that he thought chamber 3 was safe) you would stop it - I know I would.

Once selected there is still an element of danger - especially if its a blank as a blank can kill at close range especially to the head.

Best thing was it was Derren Brown doing it and he does similar things that are not magic tricks in the normal sense. If it was Blaine doing the same thing there would be ZERO audience fear because you know 100% it's a standard magical trick to begin with. With Brown there was the possibility that it was real and hence terrifying to watch.

Blaine is a good magician but his latest "stunts" are plain garbage at least this stunt was exciting ;-)

AX

[Drooper]

Originally posted by AlienX
Yeah I think it's higly likely that there was a safety net involved.
To be fair to Derren ... who wouldn't. Basically if you were the person who loaded the gun and Derren selected the loaded chamber to begin with (he said aloud that he thought chamber 3 was safe) you would stop it - I know I would.


I didn't see the show, but did Brown announce a chamber in front of the "loader" and have the opportunity to observe his reaction?

[Liamo]

Originally posted by Drooper


I didn't see the show, but did Brown announce a chamber in front of the "loader" and have the opportunity to observe his reaction?
Here's the relevant bit from the transcript:

[..] OK. Behind me is the bullet proof glass, behind that's a chair, you're going to sit in that chair for your own safety when I tell you to. The chair is bolted to the floor. You must not move out of the chair.

You must stay in the chair.

Alright? Whatever happens you don't move, and whatever happens you do not try and stop me. Don't call out. Don't try and stop it.

Alright? If I'm not a hundred percent confident, I won't do it, I won't pull the trigger.

(OK)

Does that make sense?

(Yes)

Right, you go and sit in the chair.

(James goes to chair)

There are ear protectors on your chair, just put them on your lap for now, you won't need them quite yet.

You sat in the chair?

(Yup)

Can you see me and the gun?

(Yes I can)

James, I'm going to ask you in a moment to count from one to six, I'm only going to ask you to do this once. You need to count clearly and slowly and loudly so I can hear you. From one to six.

Listen - very important as you count, don't give me any clues, don't try and help me, if you try and help me James it will confuse me, and it's really important I'm not confused. Does that make

sense?

(Yes, yeah it does).

Alright, when I say go, just take a little while, just take a moment just to take a breath and relax and then count from one to six, loudly, clearly and slowly.

Take a breath first.

Go.

(1-2-3-4-5-6)

OK, thankyou. I'm going to set the gun to a chamber that I feel is safe, that's number er that's number three. Number 3 I feel is safe. Each time that I pull the trigger the chamber will rotate one

round, so I'm going to start by firing number three which I feel is safe, and then four then five then six and then one and then two. Number three I feel is safe. James will you put your ear defenders on.

Number three I feel is safe.

[ DB puts gun to head and fires trigger. Nothing happens. ]
[...]


So no, he could not observe the loader's reaction.

Liam

[Ipecac]

The police have revealed it was a trick ("hoax" is the word used).

Gun Hoax (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/08/handgun.stunt/index.html)

Since firing a blank next to your head could still be lethal, I'm certain he knew all along in which chamber the bullet was placed. Or the barrel of the gun was solid so nothing could come out of it. He was never in any danger.

[Rolfe]

I can't even remember which channel I was watching, but one of the news announcers (could have been Channel 4 actually) said on last night's main news bulletin that the policeman involved had revealed that there was no live ammunition involved.

Did anyone else take more note of the detail of that news item than I did?

Rolfe.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Drooper
the elaborate stunt where he subconsiously plants images and words into the minds of two advertising creatives.
I do wonder if that's really how it worked. I've seen plenty of magicians do a trick like that. Y'know, getting someone to draw a picture and then them doing a copy despite being blindfolded or pointing someone to an envelope under their chair with the copy in or whatever. Something along those lines, anyway.

Beyond that he obviously uses a range of traditional magician's techniques as well. But that is no secret.
I think that the objection is, as Simon Singh pointed out in his Telegraph article, that Brown does claim not to do 'tricks'. That is dishonest. I know magicians make their livings from deceiving people, but there's a difference between a woman not really being sawn in two, and David Blaine doing a harness levitation. One is part of the fun, the other breaks the contract between the magician and the audience.

That said, I do like Brownie's programmes.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by JamesM

I do wonder if that's really how it worked. I've seen plenty of magicians do a trick like that. Y'know, getting someone to draw a picture and then them doing a copy despite being blindfolded or pointing someone to an envelope under their chair with the copy in or whatever. Something along those lines, anyway.


The difference with Brown's trick was that the "set up" was documented. They took footage of the two stooges' taxi ride to the meeting, including all the visual cues that were subsequently regurgitated.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Drooper
The difference with Brown's trick was that the "set up" was documented. They took footage of the two stooges' taxi ride to the meeting, including all the visual cues that were subsequently regurgitated.
Yeah, I know. But that doesn't mean that was how it really was done. It could have been misdirection - I suspect that research showing that human beings are able to take in and reproduce so many specific motifs, all subconsciously, would be extremely famous.

I could, of course, be entirely wrong. It's just my opinion. But as a further example, remember the trick where he 'hypnotises' the boxer so he can no longer lift the girl he efforlessly raised moments before? That's not how the trick was accomplished. Brown just made the girl stand a little further away.

[fsol]

If you don't want to be decieved then don't watch a magician's show. It's quite simple really. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. "Magician does magic trick, shocker!" And there was me thinking David Copperfield really could fly. Isn't the patter a legitimate part of the performance? When did patter become cause for shouting fraud at people.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by fsol
If you don't want to be decieved then don't watch a magician's show. It's quite simple really. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. "Magician does magic trick, shocker!" And there was me thinking David Copperfield really could fly. Isn't the patter a legitimate part of the performance? When did patter become cause for shouting fraud at people.

There is a difference between a magician and a fraud. David Copperfield didn't claim to be able fly, he claimed to be an illusionist.

Derren Brown is making money by claiming to be a "thought reader", not a magician or trickster. Magicians aren't in the spotlight anymore, so we have people - magicians - making themselves out to be something the aren't (frauds).

Derren Brown is deceiving in the same way David Blaine was deceiving when he did his televised levitation trick. Camera tricks should also have no place in magic acts.

Also, if David Blaine is actually getting some food - somehow - while inside his glass box, he is also being fraudulent. He is suddenly no better than the breatharians.

Do you see the difference?

[JamesM]

Originally posted by fsol
If you don't want to be decieved then don't watch a magician's show. It's quite simple really. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. "Magician does magic trick, shocker!" And there was me thinking David Copperfield really could fly. Isn't the patter a legitimate part of the performance? When did patter become cause for shouting fraud at people.
Say I claimed to be a mentalist, using psychology to read people's minds. I then go off and seem to uncover astonishing truths from members of the public.

But actually, I'd just hired a load of actors and we performed from a script.

Is that something worthy of the name magic? Do you not feel even a little bit cheated? Can you see any qualitative difference between this and a David Copperfield illusion?

I'm not suggesting that Derren Brown does any of his tricks in that manner, by the way. And I do recognise that magician's tricks often rely on stooges pretending to be volunteers. But it's the same way that some people feel that Uri Geller and John Edward are using simple tricks and their pretending it to be something else is dishonest.

EDIT: Oops, Humphreys beat me to it.

[fsol]

Derren Brown calls himself a "psychological illusionist." It seems pretty clear cut to me. He does not call himself a psychic or a medium. So I guess he doesn't really compare to JE or Gellar.

From his site.

Call it what you like. Derren Brown reads minds but claims no psychic power.

“I began my career as a magician but slowly left behind the props and sleight-of-hand to work with the psychological techniques that are the real stuff of magic. I have to learn people's patterns, step inside their heads. Then I can play.”

The result is a powerful, provocative and thrilling new form of entertainment.

It seems to me that playing with peoples heads can mean misdirecting his audience. I thought that *was* the real stuff of magic. I thought that was the whole point. Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did.

I really can't see the problem.

[RonSceptic]

Other points in Derren's favour are the fact that he debunks the 'psychic powers' approach on his own show, and that he is also quite involved in the 'Psychic Secrets Revealed' show on Channel 5 at 8.30pm on Fridays. (An Excellent Show- don't miss it!)

For well known perfromers to be giving TV audiences the message that no psychic ability is involved in these stunts has to be a good thing.

If Derren was dishonest enough to pretend to be psychic he would leave JE and his ilk in the dust.

[fsol]

well yup, here is an extract from an interview found here

http://www.magicweek.co.uk/magic_reviews/interview_derren_brown.htm

You constantly remind viewers what you do is not psychic. But presumably you have encountered the 'Rowland Syndrome', where no matter how much you tell people you are not psychic, they insist on believing that you are. How do you handle that?

DB: I had a nice incident with some psychics.

Shuteyes?

DB: Oh, absolutely stapled shut eyes. This was some filming we did for one of the specials that we never showed. They would do their bit, their readings, and I would offer mine, telling people about themselves and as it turned out - without sounding pompous, but this was the point of the stunt - I would do a far more accurate job than they were, tending to sound a bit woolly.


And one of things that I mentioned in the reading for this woman was the number of the house, not the one she lived in now, but the one she used to, and a description of her house, and what it looked like inside and out and also the number of it. One of the psychics said to me, "well, you're reading her Aura. You're doing an auric reading: why won't you admit it. And I said well you know, I'm not psychic, I don't believe in that, I'm doing this and this and this, and he said "no, why won't you admit it, you're doing an auric reading?" So I said why do you think that, and he said "well you named her house number, and the aura stores information like house numbers, addresses". Fantastic! You know, you'd never need an address book…

Nearer the beginning of the interview he briefly discusses how Teller had a hand in helping to find a public persona.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by fsol
Derren Brown calls himself a "psychological illusionist." It seems pretty clear cut to me. He does not call himself a psychic or a medium. So I guess he doesn't really compare to JE or Gellar.
I didn't compare Brown to JE and Geller on the basis of whether they describe themselves as psychics. I compared them on the basis of them not calling themselves magicians.

The quote from the website backs up what I've been saying. No-one really thinks that a normal magician can really read minds. They think it's a trick. No-one really thinks Derren Brown can really read minds. They think it's psychological manipulation, because he claims to be a psychological illusionist. While I can't speak for all his feats, in the ones I've been discussing, it's not psychological illusion, as separate from traditional magic tricks, which Brown explicitly states he doesn't do. It is a trick, just like the magician, but he dresses it up as something it isn't. Just like it is claimed that JE and Geller do.

Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did.
By that definition, fraudulent psychics are also magicians. But you acknowledge the difference between them and Copperfield.

Take my example with the actors and the mind-reading. Yep, I've fooled the audience.

Is that magic? If not, why not?

I really can't see the problem.
Nor do I, although I will admit I do seem to be rather banging on about it. I just think Brown's approach is slightly dishonest.

[Humphreys]

The difference between Derren Brown and a real magician is simple.

When Penn & Teller did a trick where one of them was run over by a truck, did anyone at any time feel they were really in any danger? No. It was obvious trickery was involved.

When a magician's assistant appears to be sawn in half, does anyone really believe the assistant is in any danger? Of course not. It is obvious trickery is involved.

When Derren Brown claims to play Russian Roulette, does anyone believe he is in any danger? Yes, many feared for his life.

Yet he claimed/claims no trickery was/is involved. The police and rational thinkers believe otherwise.

He is a magician and nothing more, yet he - although not claiming to have supernatural powers - gives the impression he is much more.

But I could be wrong...

[Dazza]

I feel a little bit uncomfortable with how DB describes himself. Its difficult to put him in a category.

Of course that's one big reason why he's good television. If a magician does a magic trick called Russian Roulette then I suppress a yawn - its a trick after all. DB had me on a knife's edge for an hour with his version.

Maybe magic needs someone to muddy the waters a little. In the days of the great magicians, Hoffman et al, wasn't that what they did? When audiences were less savvy didn't they try to give the impression that they had super powers?

As long as DB stays firmly in the realm of entertainment and doesn't claim to actually help or advise anyone then I think what he does is fair game.

Can't wait to see what he does next!

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by fsol It seems to me that playing with peoples heads can mean misdirecting his audience. I thought that *was* the real stuff of magic. I thought that was the whole point. Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did.[/B]

That isn't the idea at all.

This is your quote:

"Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

This is incorrect I believe. This is more accurate:

"Making it appear that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

They don't wish people to believe something extraordinary had happened. The magician doesn't want the audience to believe he cut someone in half.

How can James Randi, while promoting critical thinking, wish to make his audience believe he can cut someone in half and yet not harm them? He doesn't want this at all. He wants them to think and imagine how he could have acheived such an illusion.

He wants the audience to be baffled as to how he made it appear he cut someone in half.

See the difference with Derren Brown. He doesn't wish to make it appear he played Russian Roulette, he wants people to believe he played Russian Roulette.

He isn't as bad as John Edward, but he crosses the line from stage magic, into fraud.

[fsol]

Take my example with the actors and the mind-reading. Yep, I've fooled the audience.

Is that magic? If not, why not?

If magic is fooling people so they don't know how it was done, then it is magic. It is not particularily impressive if you know how it was done. That's partly why magicians tend not to give away their secrets. Show someone a simple card trick. Then show them how to do it. Next time you show them the trick they are not quite as impressed for some reason.

Magic is essentially dishonest. It is lying to people and taking their money. You have to draw a line somewhere. Derren doesn't claim woo woo powers. Rather he manipulates his audience. It's patter. That *is* the psychological basis of magic that he claims to use. He isn't fleecing people by taking advantage of their grief, he actually exposes the techniques "mediums" use. "If I can do this and I have no psychic powers..."
I still don't see why people are upset by this. Would you rather get a set of instructions with the program telling you how all of the tricks you paid to see were going to be performed?


He is a magician and nothing more, yet he - although not claiming to have supernatural powers - gives the impression he is much more.

But I could be wrong...

He tries not to give the impression that he is something more. He states that in the interview I linked to. One of the reasons he moved away from the card routines was so that he didn't have to play "God" anymore.

When Derren Brown claims to play Russian Roulette, does anyone believe he is in any danger? Yes, many feared for his life.

That's the point! As Dazza posted, another magician does it, "yawn." People only believed he was in danger because of his patter, his psychological manipulation of them.

Nobody thought anyone was going to get hurt in Penn and Tellers truck trick because the patter was along the lines of, "guess how we are going to do this, a trick truck, reinforced chest etc. we will tell you how we did it afterwards." All very nice and clever but not very exciting.

When a magician's assistant appears to be sawn in half, does anyone really believe the assistant is in any danger? Of course not. It is obvious trickery is involved.

I would hazard a guess that when the effect was first performed a fair few of the people watching thought it was quite dangerous.

The impression I get from posts like these is precisely the attitude that woo woos paint sceptics with. "You must have a really dull life etc."

[fsol]

Editted: To remove duplicate post.

[fsol]

"Making someone believe that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

This is incorrect I believe. This is more accurate:

"Making it appear that an extraordinary thing happened, while all along something more mundane did."

Fine, how about "making someone think..." Is that better for you?

Actually, I thought suspending your disbelief was part of the fabled "contract" between performer and audience.

It doesn't change my opinion at all though.

"Extra! Extra! Magician does magic trick! In other news, songwriter plays gig!"

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by fsol
Fine, how about "making someone think..." Is that better for you?

Of course not, it's the same as "making someone believe..." isn't it?

"making it appear..." is spot-on, IMO.

Once again, how can Penn & Teller, or James Randi promote critical thinking while - at the same time - striving to make people believe/think they can cut someone in half and not harm them?

The answer is simple, making them think they cut someone in half is not their goal. Their goal is simply to make it appear they cut someone in half, whilst encouraging their audience to think critically about how the illusion was acheived.

Again, this is the important difference with Derren Brown. He strives to make his audience believe he has really played Russian Roulette.

Fraud.

And BTW, I do not lead a boring life, and I do not see the difference between us. You acknowledge Derren Brown isn't really risking his life, as do I.

We only disagree on the correctness of misleading an audience and discouraging critical thinking.

"Extra! Extra! Magician misleads his audience in Russian Roulette hoax. Magician likes audience to believe trickery is not involved."

[fsol]

A performer uses a trick deck of cards to force a card on an audience member. Later in the same trick he switches the deck for a standard deck. He invites the audience member to examine the deck so that he can confirm that it is a standard deck of cards.

It not only appears that one standard deck was used through out, the audience member *thinks* there was one standard deck used throughout.

The performer isn't likely to put his hands up and say, "yes! I'm afraid it was a trick deck all along. That was the only card you could have picked, sorry about that old chap." It would somewhat put a dampener on the trick.

Does that make him a fraud or a magician?

Editted to add: He doesn't even need to switch packs. He can just not tell the audience member that it is a trick pack of cards.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by fsol
Does that make him a fraud or a magician?

A magician, as long as he gives the impression or claims to be a magician doing a card trick. If he claimed to be a psychic, or a "thought reader", or a "psychological illusionist" doing the trick by means other than trickery, he becomes a fraud.

Derren Brown claims to use no trickery. JE makes the same claim.

A fraud will make that claim.
A magician will not.

[Humphreys]

In a similar example.

If you found out tomorrow, that boxing - like WWF - was completely set up all along and all fights were fixed, would you be fine with this, because it had given you a lot of enjoyment and thrilling television up until that point?

I doubt it.

Where is the difference?

Don't you feel even a little cheated by Derren's hoax? - just pretend you believed it all along until he was exposed.

It's all the worse if he doesn't admit to it.

I'll stop now because I'm probably sounding like a real whiner :D

[fsol]

So it is fine to lie about a card trick but not about a russian roulette trick.

In the first instance the performer deliberately makes the audience think a standard pack of cards is used when it is not.

In the second instance the performer deliberately makes the audience think a real bullet/gun etc is used when it is not.


They both call themselves illusionists. The types of illusions they claim to do may differ but I really don't see any difference other than that. They both deliberately mislead their audiences.

The nature of each trick requires a different deception but that is all it is.

Still, you're right, I'd best shut up now too. I should really be getting on with work anyway. :D

Boxing isn't fixed? :eek:

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by fsol
Still, you're right, I'd best shut up now too. I should really be getting on with work anyway. :D

Me too. I'm going to do some work RIGHT NOW...maybe.

[Stevie -G-]

...and I'm going to give the illusion of working, but then not admit to it...

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Humphreys


There is a difference between a magician and a fraud. David Copperfield didn't claim to be able fly, he claimed to be an illusionist.

Derren Brown is making money by claiming to be a "thought reader", not a magician or trickster. Magicians aren't in the spotlight anymore, so we have people - magicians - making themselves out to be something the aren't (frauds).

Derren Brown is deceiving in the same way David Blaine was deceiving when he did his televised levitation trick. Camera tricks should also have no place in magic acts.

Also, if David Blaine is actually getting some food - somehow - while inside his glass box, he is also being fraudulent. He is suddenly no better than the breatharians.

Do you see the difference?

I can't agree with you view that Derren Brown makes woo woo cliaims. This is what he says about his techniques:

It is from this starting point that I can begin to play with the mind control for which I am known. It's not that I am really controlling other people. Rather, I am seeing events through their eyes and second-guessing their responses and thoughts. It's great fun

(my emphasis)

I wouldn't think that he could be more sepcific than that.

Clearly the phrase "reads minds" is used in a commercial show business context, as in he believes he knows how your brain will cause you to react.

For example. I can read your mind. I know that if I feign a punch at you, out of the blue, you will flinch. Nothing woo woo about that, but I can tell in advance how your brain will cause you to react. The same thing is used extensively in advertising etc.

If you want to raise support for the banning of medical experimentation on animals, show people images of mutilated baby kittens or similar. Don't show people pictures of children dying from diseases being research by those same methods.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by Drooper


I can't agree with you view that Derren Brown makes woo woo cliaims.

You'll have to fill me in on the exact definition of "woo-woo". If a woo-woo claim is a supernatural claim, then I haven't said Derren makes such claims.

If a woo-woo claim is an exaggerated claim, or a claim that gives the impression you are able to do something to a standard that no human, or even machine - lie detector - can match, then yes, Derren makes such claims and gives such impressions.

Originally posted by Drooper
but I can tell in advance how your brain will cause you to react.

But can you tell - by my reactions - whether I'm telling the truth or lying, or whether a gun contains a real bullet or a blank by listening and interpreting my voice, to the extent that you are willing to put your life on it? No, and neither can Derren, yet he gives that impression by fraudulent means.

How can this not be wrong?

Does this not make him a fraud by definition?

Fraud:

"A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

A magician doesn't fit this description, but Derren does.

[RonSceptic]

Last night on BBC there was a program called Mind Control. On the show a psychologist demonstrated how it is possible, using visual and auditory clues, to tell if someone is telling the truth or not.

Some examples are hand gestures (there are more when we tell the truth, as lies require more concentration), eye contact (less when we lie) and the use or personal pronons such as 'I' and 'Me' and 'My'(far fewer are used when we lie as the truth is genuinely autobiographical).

The psychologist successfully identified the truth from the lies.

So there may be something in the 'psychological methods' approach which Derren Brown claims to use after all.

[Bikewer]

Another item to watch for is "forehead wrinkling" in the area of the center of the forhead. Watch your favorite politicians on TV sometime.

[Drooper]

Humphrey's

Derren Brown is a magician. A magician of a particular ilk, but a magician nonetheless. That makes him a fraud by definition. I suggest you never go watch Randi perform, you would hate him. He is always lying to and misleading the audience. ;)

As to your weak rebuttal of my example where human reaction can be predicted, others have since provided better supporting evidence. However, I do not rule out the ability of somebody properly trained and experienced to be able to tell truth from lie with a better than chance result on some subjects. (note that Derren Brown always chooses his subjects).

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Another item to watch for is "forehead wrinkling" in the area of the center of the forhead. Watch your favorite politicians on TV sometime.

Yes, I seem to remember something about the eyes lokking up and to the left slightly too.

[Humphreys]

Drooper - and others - of course I don't disagree it is possible to get subtle hints or clues to tell whether someone may be lying. I simply don't believe it is possible to do this reliably or to anywhere near the standard Derren Brown would have us believe. Someone skilled in psychology could guess whether someone is being honest, accurately over 50% of the time, I'm sure. But Derren Brown claims nothing like 50-60% reliability. For him to be willing to put his life on the line, he is giving the impression he has near 100% reliability. Of course this is not the case.

Originally posted by Humphreys
But can you tell - by my reactions - whether I'm telling the truth or lying, or whether a gun contains a real bullet or a blank by listening and interpreting my voice, to the extent that you are willing to put your life on it?

Since you ignored my reply - above - simply stating it as a "weak rebuttal", I presume you agree that Derren Brown cannot tell whether someone is telling the truth or lying, to the extent he would be willing to put his life on it - as he gave the impression he was doing in his Russian Roulette hoax.

Most everyone here seems to agree he isn't being entirely honest, and is being deceitful.

What it all boils down to, it appears, is the difference between Derren Brown, a standard illusionist/stage magician and an outright fraud like Uri Geller. You are arguing Derren is no different to a magician such as James Randi - as we see from your quote below - and I am arguing he is somewhere in between Randi and Geller, and definitely bordering on outright fraud.

Originally posted by Drooper
I suggest you never go watch Randi perform, you would hate him. He is always lying to and misleading the audience. ;)

I disagree, I think Randi is great. There is of course a difference between standard magicians and Derren Brown, as we shall see.

Randi claims to be an illusionist. He claims to perfom tricks using sleight of hand, misdirection and other standard magician techniques. Derren Brown, however, claims to have given these up long ago and moved on into the realm of psychological tricks and mind manipulation. He has done nothing of the kind.

Do you really not believe this could be aggravating to a standard magician? A standard magician who can no longer get publicity because he is still performing using regular magician techniques, just as Derren is! The only difference is that Derren has lied to make himself appear to be something else altogether - he isn't.

They are the same, exactly the same. Randi and Derren use the very same techiniques in their acts. They are not of a different ilk. Uri Geller also uses the exact same techinques, but we have only Randi being honest and claiming to be a standard magician. The frauds Derren and Uri try to make us believe they are different, and different gets you on T.V.

Originally posted by Drooper
As to your weak rebuttal of my example where human reaction can be predicted, others have since provided better supporting evidence.

But I haven't stated human behavior cannot be predicted. It can, for sure, just not anywhere near the degree Derren claims.

Originally posted by Drooper
However, I do not rule out the ability of somebody properly trained and experienced to be able to tell truth from lie with a better than chance result on some subjects

I'm certain some people can achieve greater than chance results. Perhaps in the range of 60-70% on true/false questions.

Not enough to make any difference in a Russian Roulette stunt, however, where Derren would have us believe he can achieve 100% accuracy!

I hope you can see the point I am trying to get across.

[Humphreys]

I may not be getting my point across very well, so I have linked to an article I have found which states my reasons for having concerns with Derren a little clearer.

http://www.simonsingh.net/Derren_Brown_Article.html

Pay particluar attention to this quote:

Portsmouth University's Professor Aldert Vrij, an expert in methods for identifying deception, says, "People think that you can use body and voice cues to spot lies, but in fact it is much harder than it seems. There might be some excellent lie detectors but I don't know anybody who can consistently and reliably spot a lie. It is beyond current scientific knowledge. Even polygraph machines are not reliable."

And a Randi-like challenge to Derren:

Finally, I suppose I should put my money where my mouth is. Derren performed two stunts on This Morning. If he can repeat them - read my childhood thoughts and replicate a drawing that I make - then I will happily donate £1,000 to charity. Derren, if you are happy to accept the challenge, then just contact the Telegraph offices.

Still not a "woo-woo"?

What are your opinions on this?

[fsol]

Lets play a guessing game. Who shall we atribute the following quote to?

I am an author, journalist and TV producer, specialising in science and mathematics, the only two subjects I have the faintest clue about.

http://www.simonsingh.net/home.html

Ah yes, from his home page. Well that makes me chuckle. Simon Singh is a good author his Fermats Last Theorum book is very good for example. But, regardless here is an extract from another of his articles.

In addition to physical misdirection, there is also mental misdirection, which misdirects suspicion rather than attention. Mental misdirection is particularly useful because it hinders the audience’s attempt to figure out how the trick is done. If the magician can temporarily direct the audience’s suspicion towards a false method, they will be less likely to discover the real one. During the trick, they think they know the method, but at the end are shown to be wrong. By that time, it is too late for them to figure out the real method.

http://www.simonsingh.net/The_Psychology_of_Magic.html

Could this be a psychological technique that is "the real stuff of magic," as Derren would say? Well I think so and so does Simon Singh apparently. So I don't really see what he is complaining about.