Derren Brown's screaming stooges

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Dude, just shut the hell up with the trolling already.

I aint trolling , I'm just bringing your past behaviour to light for benefit of the topic. Is it my fault you and logic dont go together?

[Azrael 5]

So just to be clear John Albert
Girl on Experiments with hands glued to gether is a stooge.
Magda Rodriquez is a stooge.
And Derren Brown is not as bad as John Edward but then is ,also he is capable of rigging a theatre audience so he can find a stooge with a frisbee!
Fantastic. Ever thought of taking up comedy?

[tuoni]

Originally Posted by John Albert

I never said "actors never have time off." Quit with the strawmen.

My point is that they don't spend their "time off" appearing on professional telecasts that the union specifies they're supposed to have a paid contract for, completely pro bono for no good reason. It's not like appearing on Derren Brown's show is some kind of charity work.

Yeah, non-professional performers don't get paid because they're not in the SAG. The main thing about being in an actor's union is that they have to pay you for appearances on TV, in movies, on stage, etc.

They might feed you, and will even fly you in and put you up in a hotel in rare circumstances (if you're a special guest of some sort), but regular schmoes generally don't get paid for TV appearances except in rare circumstances. The production company and TV network that airs the show can get into all kinds of crap with the union—possibly even boycotted—for doing that.

We're not talking about an amateur cable access show, or even an amateur appearing on a professional TV show. It's totally different for a card-carrying member of the Screen Actor's Guild card on a professional television shoot. If you're a professional working in show business, you join the union and you get paid for performances. That's how it works. You don't need to have "star power" to get paid for appearances. If a reality TV show is looking for some "John Smith type of person" whom they don't have to pay, they won't use a professional actress who's a member of the actors' union.

I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect the UK acting union is essentially the same as the Screen Actor's Guild in that regard. There's a reason they have these unions, to create a clear demarcation between amateurs and the people working professionally so that the professionals can be guaranteed pay and benefits.

Why do you find this so difficult to believe? It sounds to me like you're actively looking for any possible excuse that might allow you to deny that Derren Brown lied (which he clearly did, by saying he does not use any actors in the show). Even if she was not paid, she's still an actress performing on his show in front of an array of TV cameras and production people, so it's still a lie.

I assume you missed post #323 where I already pointed out that your supposed evidence for this assertion is nothing of the sort?

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by John Albert

I never said "actors never have time off." Quit with the strawmen.

My point is that they don't spend their "time off" appearing on professional telecasts that the union specifies they're supposed to have a paid contract for, completely pro bono for no good reason.

I realise you can't prove a negative, so it stands to reason that you can't prove this is true.

Quote:

The main thing about being in an actor's union is...

blah blah blah

snipped a load of words

I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect the UK acting union ....

snipped a load more words

Yes, that's what people have been telling you all along.

[Azrael 5]

Is there a UK/US difference in the phrase "No actors were used" ?

To me it means NO actors were employed,rehearsed,prompted,scripted etc in context of DB show.
If not then JA should be jumping up and down excitedly about Stephen Fry,Matt Lucas,Simon Pegg et al.

Another of John Albert's "Stooge" cries: He read on a forum somewhere that Derren used same poeple on numerous nights on tour from audience.
Im convinced.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Yeah, non-professional performers don't get paid because they're not in the SAG. The main thing about being in an actor's union is that they have to pay you for appearances on TV, in movies, on stage, etc.

They might feed you, and will even fly you in and put you up in a hotel in rare circumstances (if you're a special guest of some sort), but regular schmoes generally don't get paid for TV appearances except in rare circumstances. The production company and TV network that airs the show can get into all kinds of crap with the union—possibly even boycotted—for doing that.

We're not talking about an amateur cable access show, or even an amateur appearing on a professional TV show. It's totally different for a card-carrying member of the Screen Actor's Guild card on a professional television shoot. If you're a professional working in show business, you join the union and you get paid for performances. That's how it works. You don't need to have "star power" to get paid for appearances. If a reality TV show is looking for some "John Smith type of person" whom they don't have to pay, they won't use a professional actress who's a member of the actors' union.

I don't know for certain, but I strongly suspect the UK acting union is essentially the same as the Screen Actor's Guild in that regard. There's a reason they have these unions, to create a clear demarcation between amateurs and the people working professionally so that the professionals can be guaranteed pay and benefits.

John, to be fair, membership of a union gives you 'rights' only when you want to claim them. It is each individual member's right to make their own decisions and if they chose to go on a show without getting paid, it's non of the union's business. Certainly here in the UK anyway.

There was a time when you couldn't appear on TV (paid work) without being a member of Equity. I don't know if that's changed over the years but I do know for sure that a lot of TV contracts for people appearing in TV shows that state they will make themselves available for unpaid 'promotional appearances' if required. No union has any power to to demand payment for anyone who chooses to appear free of charge.

So really, the only way payment could be used to show anything is if she did get paid (obviously that would indicate she was a hired actress), but if she didn't, it means nothing as she has every right to do what ever she wants irregardless of if she's a union member and you can't really use her appearance on the show to assume she got paid.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

I aint trolling , I'm just bringing your past behaviour to light for benefit of the topic. Is it my fault you and logic dont go together?

Yeah, ad hominems like that are exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're trolling.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by tuoni

I assume you missed post #323 where I already pointed out that your supposed evidence for this assertion is nothing of the sort?

Um, it did not.

Your post stated was that Channel 4 was separate entity from ITV. So what? The difference between ITV and Channel 4 is actually of very little relevance anyway.

How does that invalidate my point that a professional union card-carrying actress appeared on Derren Brown's show despite the fact that he denied any actors were used?

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

John, to be fair, membership of a union gives you 'rights' only when you want to claim them. It is each individual member's right to make their own decisions and if they chose to go on a show without getting paid, it's non of the union's business. Certainly here in the UK anyway.

If that's in fact the way Equity works (and I've seen no clear-cut evidence either way), then I'll concede that I was wrong about that assumption.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

There was a time when you couldn't appear on TV (paid work) without being a member of Equity. I don't know if that's changed over the years but I do know for sure that a lot of TV contracts for people appearing in TV shows that state they will make themselves available for unpaid 'promotional appearances' if required. No union has any power to to demand payment for anyone who chooses to appear free of charge.

But why should she appear free of charge? Being a professional who typically gets paid for a TV gig, why would she?

Maybe she was hypnotized by Derren Brown into working for free?

Or maybe some people here are assuming she waived her right to get paid, just to harbor their fantasy that Derren Brown never tells lies?

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

So really, the only way payment could be used to show anything is if she did get paid (obviously that would indicate she was a hired actress), but if she didn't, it means nothing as she has every right to do what ever she wants irregardless of if she's a union member and you can't really use her appearance on the show to assume she got paid.

Whether or not she got paid is still an irrelevant detail. The fact is, she's an actress and she was on his show, performing in front of cameras. Derren Brown plainly stated in the disclaimer to the show that none of the participants are stooges or actors, when in fact at least one of them was most certainly an actor.

I can't believe so many people are twisting and contorting this simple fact, making assumptions to imply excuses, all in the interest of weaseling out of accepting the fact that Derren Brown actually lied.

The amount of self-delusion that some people cultivate about this guy is simply astounding to me.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

A plausible explanation for voodoo doll:

We dont see the whole thing,its edited. She is primed via hypnotic suggestion or such(im no expert but it fits)and i sput into a situation where she is deeply suggestible.

Evidence that such a thing is even possible?

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

She is involved emotionally due to her ring being (she thinks)place into the voodoo doll,

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

and some dual reality is incorporated.Part of what we think is happening one way isnt.

What does this even mean? It's so vague it doesn't explain anything at all.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Along with some sleight of hand

What "sleight of hand"?

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

and a particualr magic prop we arrive at the conclusion.

What kind of prop?

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Not saying 100% it's the method

What you said is not even an explanation. It's completely vague and did not even make sense, let alone explain anything. That's not plausible in the least.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

it 's moresensible than "stooges".

No, it really isn't. It's hardly even sensible at all. It certainly isn't a "method."

What you said was barely a coherent string of sentences, let alone "sensible."

Stooges are a known method used by mentalists and hypnotists. Instant stooging is another known method.

We already know she's an actress, despite Derren Brown's lie that he didn't use any.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Considering Derren Brown states he doesn't use them. (please dont bore me with the "lied about using an actress Ive explained it).

He also said he didn't use actors, but he did, at least once.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by John Albert

If that's in fact the way Equity works (and I've seen no clear-cut evidence either way), then I'll concede that I was wrong about that assumption.

Well again I can't provide any easy available evidence, but one of my ex-girlfriends worked on a BBC magic show and in her contract, it stated that she had to do free TV promotional work. She was an equity member.

Originally Posted by John Albert

But why should she appear free of charge? Being a professional who typically gets paid for a TV gig, why would she?

Surely any speculation on her motives for doing something that most people would like to do is a dead end isn't it?

Why would a professional ice skater go to the local ice rink, or a professional dancer go to a night club?
Why is the Magic Castle full of magicians all trying to do magic at each other in the lounge bar?

She is a bit of a woo (from the description given)... maybe it was something personal to her that she wanted to experience... or maybe she was secretly getting paid, I don't know.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Or maybe because some people here are assuming she waived her right to get paid, just to bolster their argument that Derren Brown never lies?
Whether or not she got paid is still an irrelevant detail.

Not if you can prove she got paid, it would be the conclusive evidence needed to prove she was a stooge. I suggested in the other thread, if anyone was interested enough that they could try to apply to Companies House for copies of the audited accounts of Objective Productions to see if there is a paper trail. It's really the only way to put the payment matter to bed. Though I'm not even sure if that information would be available or if it would fall under Data Protection Act but limited companies are obliged by law to submit audited accounts and they are as far as I know, publicly available for inspection.

Originally Posted by John Albert

The fact is, she's an actress and she was on his show, performing in front of cameras.
Derren Brown plainly stated in the disclaimer to the show that none of the participants are stooges or actors, when in fact at least one of them was most certainly an actor.

Like I said earlier in the thread, when I was being filmed for his show, I could have been an actor, he wouldn't even have known. There were 30 or so people in that small crowd, three of us did the trick with him, any of us could have been an actor. I wasn't asked about my occupation and I have no reason to suppose the others were asked either.

So really it does hinge on if she was hired for the job, in which case, proof of payment would be the only thing to clinch the deal for me. Until then I am still at this point; maybe she was, maybe she wasn't.

[Azrael 5]

Regarding post above (above Stary Cat's)your just being ridiculous . You want me to tell you what sleight of hand he used etc.? Duh dont think so. Once you stop posting assumptions as facts I'll be glad to.

So "suggestion" isnt possible? Lovely.

Quote:

We already know she's an actress, despite Derren Brown's lie that he didn't use any.

Already explained. Simon Pegg? Stephen Fry? And on and on and on.

From Magda R's IMDB page:

Quote:

Employment Details

• Work History: Live Art Performance, Voice Over, Radio, Theater, Internet, Television, Film, Corporate Recordings, Presenting, Commercial
• Job Categories: Acting, Production
• Are you willing to work unpaid?: Yes
• Primary Citizenship: United Kingdom
• Valid Passport: Yes

Boo ya to you John Albert

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for Rule 0.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

You want me to tell you what sleight of hand he used etc.? Duh dont think so. Once you stop posting assumptions as facts I'll be glad to.

So, still no plausible alternate explanation.

And I did not post assumptions as facts. I've simply looked at evidence and drawn my conclusions.

I have yet to see you present any evidence.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

So "suggestion" isnt possible?

I didn't say that. You're making far more assumptions that I am, without any evidence whatsoever, and I've seen no evidence that the kind of "mind control" you're claiming is even possible.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Simon Pegg? Stephen Fry? And on and on and on.

That disclaimer was not even used on those shows.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

From Magda R's IMDB page:


Boo ya to you John Albert

Congratulations! You do know how to look for evidence, after all!

So she said she'll work for free. How does that in any way prove your point?

As I said, that still doesn't prove she wasn't hired to act. Maybe she was hired and decided to work for free. We know she's an actress with professional training and a union card, and Derren Brown said he didn't use any actors.

Also, she had listed the job on her filmography, before it was suddenly removed without explanation.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

She is a bit of a woo (from the description given)... maybe it was something personal to her that she wanted to experience... or maybe she was secretly getting paid, I don't know.

Unless she was acting. You know, like an actress might do.

Not that it's conclusive or anything, but I've done quite a bit of searching for any evidence outside that segment on Derren's show that indicates promotion, endorsement or involvement with any kind of New Age activities, and have found nothing at all.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Unless she was acting. You know, like an actress might do.

Yes I believe she was acting to an extent, because I know that you can't hypnotise a person in the way represented by DB. However, I've also seen non actors being able to act the part at hypnotist shows.
The sticking point is did DB know she was an actress and did Objective Productions hire her to play that part.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Not that it's conclusive or anything, but I've done quite a bit of searching for any evidence outside that segment on Derren's show that indicates promotion, endorsement or involvement with any kind of New Age activities, and have found nothing at all.

Yes, it's not conclusive, many people can have an interest in woo without it impacting on anything that would get reported on the internet. Even her personal website focuses on her work and says little about her as a person.

What is interesting however and you may want to follow it up is that Rodriguez is a member of Casting Call Pro who have provided actors for Derren Brown's shows in the past (not actors pretending to be participants but people for commercials and the actors in the Science of Attraction shows).
Jennifer Henderson lists her role as "Mother"
Rachel Waters lists her role as "Chic Dog Walker"
Both of these were the commercials and;
Oliver Brown who played an actor in The Science of Attraction

Notice that Magda's role on the DB show is displayed in her Resumé... However, it's only vaguely interesting, again nothing that couldn't be explained by her adding everything she's ever done to make it look like she's very experienced. I'm sure if I ever put together a Resumé of my work I'd want to include Magic/Prop build Consultant for Amazing Johnathan, Kevin James and Billy McComb, Magic Technician at the Magic Castle, Performed magic in several Vegas casinos... none of these things are lies, but they stretch the envelope without context.

[Sledge]

Two points for John here.
1)

Originally Posted by Sledge

you still havn't answered my two questions of "An alternate explanation for what?" and "Why do we need to provide one?"

Third time of asking.

2) Why don't you ask the woman what happened?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Whether or not she got paid is still an irrelevant detail.

It's been a key part of your argument for quite a while now. If she wasn't paid, then there's no reason to even suppose that Brown knew what her profession was. Maybe he did, but there's no evidence to support it.

This is the thing - I've not seen anybody state flat-out that there's no possible way she was a stooge, just that there's no evidence to suggest she was. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be willing to concede that maybe she wasn't.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by John Albert

He said he didn't use any actors. He used an actor.

He used Simon Pegg as well.

The man must have paid him too!!!

Seriously "doesn't not use actors" = "does not hire actors". Unless you can show she was hired, it doesn't make him a liar.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by John Albert

So, still no plausible alternate explanation.

And I did not post assumptions as facts. I've simply looked at evidence and drawn my conclusions.

I have yet to see you present any evidence.

Only evidence is that she is an actor,thats it. You cannot grasp this unfortunately. I dont need to produce evidence. I gave you -as requested-an alternative and you still dont like it.

Quote:

I didn't say that. You're making far more assumptions that I am, without any evidence whatsoever, and I've seen no evidence that the kind of "mind control" you're claiming is even possible.

Ive not seen kind of mind control that makes people rob a bank(Heist) yet dont hear you calling them stooges/actors.

Quote:

That disclaimer was not even used on those shows.

*buzz* Wrong.
Simon Pegg show ,usual disclaimer is said
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5SD4WiwHJk

Quote:

Congratulations! You do know how to look for evidence, after all!

Found no evidence she was employed by Objective,do you have any?

Quote:

As I said, that still doesn't prove she wasn't hired to act. Maybe she was hired and decided to work for free. We know she's an actress with professional training and a union card, and Derren Brown said he didn't use any actors.

Maybe she didnt too. As ive repeated over and over "used" means "employed prearranged. Get it through your head.

Quote:

Also, she had listed the job on her filmography, before it was suddenly removed without explanation.

Why does she need to explain it? Email her and ask her,its on her IMDB page.
From your other post:

Quote:

What "sleight of hand"?

Evidence?

A false transfer of her ring.Evidence? look at at the video obviously! When I say somethign its usually true.

Quote:

No, it really isn't. It's hardly even sensible at all. It certainly isn't a "method."

How would you know?

Quote:

Stooges are a known method used by mentalists and hypnotists. Instant stooging is another known method.

Backpalming is a known method for card tricks,so you are saying every magician usues it?

Quote:

We already know she's an actress, despite Derren Brown's lie that he didn't use any.

Simon Pegg,Matt Lucas,Stephen fry.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

He used Simon Pegg as well.

The man must have paid him too!!!

Seriously "doesn't not use actors" = "does not hire actors". Unless you can show she was hired, it doesn't make him a liar.

^ This

I've being trying to drill that into his stooge obsessed brain for days

[silver birch]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81360051/

watch the voodoo doll episode and decide for yourself.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by silver birch

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81360051/

watch the voodoo doll episode and decide for yourself.

Wow all these pages and no-one has watched the clip?!

I watched it and decided.
Oh and by the way silver birch proof Derren is selling snake oil,proof girls in Seance were stooges,proof guy in Casino was a stooge.

Come back when you've got something.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by silver birch

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81360051/

watch the voodoo doll episode and decide for yourself.

I have decided for myself. I've decided that you are, for some reason, obsessed with Derren Brown. I wonder if you'd have been obssessed with Paul Daniels if you'd been born thirty years earlier?

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Sledge

I have decided for myself. I've decided that you are, for some reason, obsessed with Derren Brown. I wonder if you'd have been obssessed with Paul Daniels if you'd been born thirty years earlier?

I liked this, not a lot, but I liked this.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by Sledge

I have decided for myself. I've decided that you are, for some reason, obsessed with Derren Brown. I wonder if you'd have been obssessed with Paul Daniels if you'd been born thirty years earlier?

Maybe him and John Albert can form their own anti-fan club. Membership requirements:talking a load of hot air.

[John Albert]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

He used Simon Pegg as well.

The man must have paid him too!!!

I have no reason to doubt that Pegg was paid for his appearance. Why wouldn't he be? Objective Productions is a big TV production company, not a community theater charity case. Why should Simon Pegg, a professional actor and movie star, make an appearance on national TV for free?

But that's not even the issue here. I've already already explained the differences between the appearance of Magda Rodriguez on one of Derren Brown's shows, and the appearances of Simon Pegg and Stephen Fry on other shows of DB's. In case you missed that, I'll repeat:

• Those guys were obviously celebrity guests, and the fact that they're actors was not withheld from the TV viewing audience, as it was with Magda Rodriguez.

• Magda Rodriguez knowingly turned in an expressionistic theatrical performance (called "Vudu Mind Player" on her CV) wherein she acted the part of being in a trance. Simon Pegg and Stephen Fry did not turn in such theatrics, instead appearing to act naturally as themselves.

• Most importantly, Derren Brown issued a disclaimer at the start of the show that featured Magda Rodriguez, that no actors or stooges were used.

• He made no such disclaimer disavowing the use of actors on the show featuring Simon Pegg, and he most certainly did not use a disclaimer for the show that Stephen Fry was on.

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Seriously "doesn't not use actors" = "does not hire actors". Unless you can show she was hired, it doesn't make him a liar.

Seriously? Now you're a mind reader, purporting to tell me what was in Derren Brown's head when he made the disclaimer?

No.

Derren Brown said what he said; not what you wish he'd said, or what you prefer to believe he meant by what he said.

He did not say "No actors or stooges were hired." He did not say "No actors or stooges were paid." He said "No actors or stooges were used."

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Yes I believe she was acting to an extent, because I know that you can't hypnotise a person in the way represented by DB. However, I've also seen non actors being able to act the part at hypnotist shows.

The sticking point is did DB know she was an actress and did Objective Productions hire her to play that part.

Agreed about the question whether DB knew she was an actress, but I disagree that the pay issue is even relevant.

The only reason the issue of pay ever became a point of contention in the first place is that others in this thread have hammered on the point that an actress appearing on the show means nothing unless I can present a paycheck or contract as evidence to prove that she got paid. It's a bit of a sidetrack really, and it was my fault for even entertaining that question seriously.

People can continue to harp on the matter of whether she was paid, but as far as I'm concerned the central issue in whether DB lied is not whether she was paid, but whether he and his company in fact knew she was an actress before choosing her for the piece.

I think it's a stretch to assume that nobody in the entire production company knew, considering she wasn't just a random audience member he selected and brought up onstage in an impromptu manner. According to his introduction, she had clearly been preselected for this bit, and he already knew all these other details about the "woo" stuff she claimed to be into, before "inviting" her "to Epping forest" to shoot the piece.

Is it reasonable to assume he would have established all these other facts about her beliefs in order to design a performance around her, without ever having asked her about her profession? Is it reasonable to assume that her being a trained, professional actress never came up in conversation at any point in this business of a professional television shoot?

Let's be realistic. You claim to have been involved in TV shoots before. You say you know people who work in TV. That being the case, you should realize the way people talk on a closed TV set, and you ought to know that most professionals in the industry can identify trained "theater people" from a mile away, by their behavior and demeanor on set.

As for the question whether she was acting, I feel it's rather obvious that she was. It's apparent just by watching the program that her behavior is an unnatural affectation, completely unlike a person "acting natural" or "being herself."

Standing in a stiff, mannequin-like pose, staring at a fixed point in space with her arm outstretched while Derren Brown physically turns away is not normal behavior under any normal circumstance. Derren Brown poses her like a doll, removes the ring from her finger, and when he turns his back on her she doesn't even move, instead maintaining the same robotic, "trance-like" pose. This indicates that she knows full well that this is a performance piece and not just an ad-lib conversation. Derren Brown even sits down on the fallen tree log in front of her, yet she remains standing like a statue, staring off into space like a zombie.

That's not normal behavior. That's acting. Real hypnosis does not make people act like that in real life. Normal people onstage in a stage hypnotism show don't even act the part with that much conviction. The only places we see hypnosis subjects acting like that is in movies and on television. If you look at Derren Brown's other shows where he "hypnotizes" people, his other "subjects" in a studio setting don't behave like that. What is going on there is obviously a theatrical performance.

One must also acknowledge the fact that they were set up on location in a forest for a TV shoot with what appears to be at least 2 fixed television cameras on tracks and dollies, and what appears to be a third television camera mounted on a crane (for the dramatic overhead shots), along with boom mics, a director, and a full complement of crew and techs. I think it's fair to assume that Magda Rodriguez the professional actress had some clue that this was a professional TV set of a well-known spooky magician and she was expected to play the macabre role of a hypnotized voodoo doll victim. You know, the role that she previously listed as "Vudu Mind Player" in her CV.

If one takes this situation as a whole, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that her being an actress is not just a coincidence. Her behavior is simply not consistent with the way a normal person behaves. It's not consistent with the way a person behaves under hypnosis. It is exactly the way one would expect an actress to behave if she were on a TV shoot working a scene with the knowledge that she's expected to act like she's in a trance state.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Notice that Magda's role on the DB show is displayed in her Resumé...

Yeah, I didn't even see that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'd thought all references of her appearance on DB's show had been removed from the Web, but apparently that one got missed.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

However, it's only vaguely interesting, again nothing that couldn't be explained by her adding everything she's ever done to make it look like she's very experienced. I'm sure if I ever put together a Resumé of my work I'd want to include Magic/Prop build Consultant for Amazing Johnathan, Kevin James and Billy McComb, Magic Technician at the Magic Castle, Performed magic in several Vegas casinos... none of these things are lies, but they stretch the envelope without context.

Why would she not do that? It's entirely reasonable and consistent with presenting a complete CV. I would not expect Ms. Rodriguez to leave off any public performance, especially one as captivating and widely recognized as her Voodoo Doll routine.

As to the question whether she's actually a stooge, according to self-proclaimed professionals in this and the other thread, that determination rests on whether or not she was informed of the trick beforehand, or explicitly instructed on how to act. We have no way of knowing for certain what was said between her and Derren Brown prior to this performance, and there are certainly better examples of blatantly staged situations from Derren Brown's TV shows. This one appears to be a case wherein DB simply sourced an actress for a part in which a nuanced performance was desired, despite the denial in his disclaimer of using actors.

Now I'm not saying that's the only possible explanation that makes sense. I'm just saying that I haven't heard a single plausible alternate explanation that fits the evidence, so until I find a better explanation I consider it entirely reasonable.

Of course I expect most of the posters in this thread to completely handwave and disregard all the analysis I have presented here, and instead continue along the cheap and cowardly route of mocking, namecalling me an "anti-fan," making false accusations of all manner of logical fallacies, and complaining that I haven't provided conclusive proof.

I don't hate Derren Brown. I've seen the guy do some amazing things and I think he's a very good showman.

The whole point of my involvement in this thread has nothing to do with hating Derren Brown. The only reason I'm debating this is because I recognize that Derren Brown has become a bit of a polarizing figure around here, in large part because an awful lot of people appear unable or unwilling to approach his act with a critical mind. So I'm arguing this issue to demonstrate that one should make one's own observations and inquiries and use one's own critical reasoning skills to reach one's own conclusions instead of just taking some celebrity on TV at his word.

[silver birch]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Wow all these pages and no-one has watched the clip?!

I watched it and decided.
Oh and by the way silver birch proof Derren is selling snake oil,proof girls in Seance were stooges,proof guy in Casino was a stooge.

Come back when you've got something.

did you decide it was a loadacrap? because the previous DB loadacrap I posted, you decided wasn't one.

[silver birch]

Originally Posted by Sledge

I have decided for myself. I've decided that you are, for some reason, obsessed with Derren Brown. I wonder if you'd have been obssessed with Paul Daniels if you'd been born thirty years earlier?

That episode was not a magic trick. It was contrived and fake hypnotism. Paul Daniels has never attempted anything as blatantly nonsensical as that.

[DJM]

Originally Posted by John Albert

• Most importantly, Derren Brown issued a disclaimer at the start of the show that featured Magda Rodriguez, that no actors or stooges were used.

Most importantly, Derren also issued a disclaimer at the start of the shows where Stephen Fry and Simon Pegg appeared in.

Quote:

• He made no such disclaimer disavowing the use of actors on the show featuring Simon Pegg, and he most certainly did not use a disclaimer for the show that Stephen Fry was on.

You are most certainly wrong. If you are not sure of your statements, why do you keep repeating them? Wouldn't it be better for you check things first before you say things that would make you look like a liar?


Here's full episode with Stephen Fry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyT11OyxLHI

Disclaimer at beginning, with Fry appearning 4 minutes into the video.


Simon Pegg episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsMMBFhj0o8

Same disclaimer and he appears near the end of the video.

[John Albert]

Well then he plainly lied again.

I hadn't seen those videos in full, as broadcast, along with the disclaimers before.

I suppose one could argue that those two guys weren't "technically actors" because they weren't acting in their appearances, but on the other hand it's clear that Magda Rodriguez was. Look at those videos, and then re-watch the "Voodoo Doll" bit and tell me you can't see any difference at all in the behaviors of both Stephen Fry and Simon Pegg, and the performance of Magda Rodriguez.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by DJM

Most importantly, Derren also issued a disclaimer at the start of the shows where Stephen Fry and Simon Pegg appeared in.




You are most certainly wrong. If you are not sure of your statements, why do you keep repeating them? Wouldn't it be better for you check things first before you say things that would make you look like a liar?


Here's full episode with Stephen Fry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyT11OyxLHI

Disclaimer at beginning, with Fry appearning 4 minutes into the video.


Simon Pegg episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsMMBFhj0o8

Same disclaimer and he appears near the end of the video.

DJM Ive pointed this out to him umpteen times as have other members regarding the term "used" inconnection with Magda R. he doesnt want to listen. Why he htink s the voodoo doll effect needed a stooge is a mystery to everyone except John Albert.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by silver birch

did you decide it was a loadacrap? because the previous DB loadacrap I posted, you decided wasn't one.

No I decided your post was.

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Well then he plainly lied again.

I hadn't seen those videos in full, as broadcast, along with the disclaimers before.

Yet you stated as fact no disclaimers were used.

Quote:

I suppose one could argue that those two guys weren't "technically actors" because they weren't acting in their appearances, but on the other hand it's clear that Magda Rodriguez was.

Was she? Got any....proof?

Quote:

Look at those videos, and then re-watch the Voodoo Doll bit and tell me you can't see any difference at all in the behaviors of both Stephen Fry and Simon Pegg, and the performance of Magda Rodriguez.

Yep Fry and Pegg werent "hypnotized",she was. Different routine different look.
Card tricks would look pretty silly if the subject was apparently in a "trance".

Any word on the sleight of hand evidence I provided? Or are you just glossing over it?
I've explained a likely method for the trick,now Im offering my theory on her. As Derren or Objective recruit in various places for participants she likely thought it worth applying for. Possibly didnt tell them she was an actress, or if she did they didnt think it relevant as she wasn't ,wait for it.......acting!

Perhaps you could explain why you think an actress would be needed,considering all the many other surreal things he does with people? Go check out his stage show would send your stooge-o-meter into meltdown.

[silver birch]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

No I decided your post was.

that reply makes no sense whatsoever.
those 2 posts only consisted of links to episodes. as the links load OK, how can a link itself be a loadacrap?

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Agreed about the question whether DB knew she was an actress, but I disagree that the pay issue is even relevant.

I'm 100% certain that you would see it as very relevant if you could prove she was paid.

I've suggested a way to attempt to find that out.

Originally Posted by John Albert

People can continue to harp on the matter of whether she was paid, but as far as I'm concerned the central issue in whether DB lied is not whether she was paid, but whether he and his company in fact knew she was an actress before choosing her for the piece.

I've suggested one avenue to follow up on that too.

Originally Posted by John Albert

I think it's a stretch to assume that nobody in the entire production company knew, considering she wasn't just a random audience member he selected and brought up onstage in an impromptu manner. According to his introduction, she had clearly been preselected for this bit, and he already knew all these other details about the "woo" stuff she claimed to be into, before "inviting" her "to Epping forest" to shoot the piece.

This is a good point.
However, it's still firmly in the area of speculation.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Is it reasonable to assume he would have established all these other facts about her beliefs in order to design a performance around her, without ever having asked her about her profession?

It's not even reasonable to suggest that the performance was designed around her, though it could have been tweaked slightly to take advantage of any information they had about her.
I have two reasons to doubt her profession ever came up before hand (though I admit I also have doubts about my doubts)
1. When I participated in filming with DB, I was chatted to by the production staff before hand but my profession was never asked about and I didn't mention my being a magician because I figured if I had, I would have been dropped for someone else.
2. If the production crew knew she was an actress, it's a real risk for them to take when her next acting job could have put her face in the spotlight to a much wider public. The time between filming and broadcast for the DB shows at that time was in the order of months. Imagine if she left the DB set and the next week got a part on a TV soap (lead time of less than a week), she'd be a known name and face weeks before she was presented as non acting "Joanne public" on the DB show.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Is it reasonable to assume that her being a trained, professional actress never came up in conversation at any point in this business of a professional television shoot?

It's no more reasonable to assume that it did than that it didn't.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Let's be realistic. You claim to have been involved in TV shoots before. You say you know people who work in TV. That being the case, you should realize the way people talk on a closed TV set, and you ought to know that most professionals in the industry can identify trained "theater people" from a mile away, by their behavior and demeanor on set.

That starts out well with "Let's be realistic" but by the end, it's actually not realistic at all. Whilst it is true that some people are easily recognisable by their experienced, professional demeanor on set, it is also just as true that some people who have no experience can give the appearance of a professional demeanor and that some people who are very experienced act like rank amateurs on set.

Originally Posted by John Albert

As for the question whether she was acting, I feel it's rather obvious that she was. It's apparent just by watching the program that her behavior is an unnatural affectation, completely unlike a person "acting natural" or "being herself."

Again, if she was "getting in the role" it's not uncommon for actors and non actors alike. The people in the Seance were acting scared, they had an expectation and reacted accordingly.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Standing in a stiff, mannequin-like pose, staring at a fixed point in space with her arm outstretched while Derren Brown physically turns away is not normal behavior under any normal circumstance. Derren Brown poses her like a doll, removes the ring from her finger, and when he turns his back on her she doesn't even move, instead maintaining the same robotic, "trance-like" pose. This indicates that she knows full well that this is a performance piece and not just an ad-lib conversation. Derren Brown even sits down on the fallen tree log in front of her, yet she remains standing like a statue, staring off into space like a zombie.

That's not normal behavior. That's acting. Real hypnosis does not make people act like that in real life. Normal people onstage in a stage hypnotism show don't even act the part with that much conviction. The only places we see hypnosis subjects acting like that is in movies and on television. If you look at Derren Brown's other shows where he "hypnotizes" people, his other "subjects" in a studio setting don't behave like that. What is going on there is obviously a theatrical performance.

What DB has in this situation that he doesn't usually have is no audience. This allows editing to be much more 'creative' in how the finished trick is presented. He has a subject (Magda) who isn't playing to an audience of onlookers, she's doing what is expected of her in the traditional role of a hypnotist trick... Yes, she's acting because hypnotism doesn't work like that, but what you see in screen isn't exactly how it's happening in the forest. None of this gets anyone closer to finding out if Objective Productions knew her profession and chose her because of it.

Originally Posted by John Albert

One must also acknowledge the fact that they were set up on location in a forest for a TV shoot with what appears to be at least 2 fixed television cameras on tracks and dollies, and what appears to be a third television camera mounted on a crane (for the dramatic overhead shots), along with boom mics, lighting, and a full complement of crew and techs. I think it's fair to assume that Magda Rodriguez the professional actress had some clue that this was a professional TV set of a well-known spooky magician and she was expected to play the macabre role of a hypnotized voodoo doll victim. You know, the role that she previously listed as "Vudu Mind Player" in her CV.

But this isn't about her perception of events really (obviously she knew what situation she was in), it's about if Objective Productions had knowledge of her being an actress and if they used her because of it.

Originally Posted by John Albert

If one takes this situation as a whole, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that her being an actress is not just a coincidence. Her behavior is simply not consistent with the way a normal person behaves. It's not consistent with the way a person behaves nuder hypnosis. It is exactly the way one would expect an actress to behave if she were on a TV shoot working a scene with the knowledge that she's expected to act like she's in a trance state.

But certainly at the moment, it's just as reasonable to conclude the opposite.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Yeah, I didn't even see that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'd thought all references of her appearance on DB's show had been removed from the Web, but apparently that one got missed.

No, as far as I know, it's only the one on IMDb that has gone.
It is still on her personal website and still on the Casting Call Pro website as well as Cast Net.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Why would she not do that? It's entirely reasonable and consistent with presenting a complete CV. I would not expect Ms. Rodriguez to leave off any public performance, especially one as captivating and widely recognized as her Voodoo Doll routine.

She hasn't left it off, it's been deleted from IMDb, which as far as I know is much like Wikipedia, in that anyone can join and update and edit the pages. She may not have done it herself.

Originally Posted by John Albert

Now I'm not saying that's the only possible explanation that makes sense. I'm just saying that I haven't heard a single plausible alternate explanation that fits the evidence, so until I find a better explanation I consider it entirely reasonable.

It is quite reasonable I agree, but at the moment, it's also just as reasonable to conclude that Objective Productions had no knowledge of her being a professional actress nor that they used her because of it.

I've given two avenues of investigation that could possibly supply the evidence needed to make a conclusion based upon more than assumption/opinion, if no one follows them up, this thread will go on and on.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by silver birch

That episode was not a magic trick. It was contrived and fake hypnotism. Paul Daniels has never attempted anything as blatantly nonsensical as that.

Is there any other kind?

[Azrael 5]

Originally Posted by silver birch

that reply makes no sense whatsoever.
those 2 posts only consisted of links to episodes. as the links load OK, how can a link itself be a loadacrap?

No they didnt.They were prefaced with your written biased opinion of them.Which is indeed a "loadacrap".

[Azrael 5]

StaryCat can I ask you ,as JA is choosing when his ignore function works and doesnt work regards me.

Would you say Magda's behaviour to be any different to say Zombie Arcade man,Assassin man or indeed numerous other examples of Derren partcipants. As this seems to be a crux of John Albert's theory.

Also this seems to be a defintion of "Dual Reality" which I stated earlier in my explanation of a possible mehtod,and JA seemes to scorn.

Quote:

What DB has in this situation that he doesn't usually have is no audience. This allows editing to be much more 'creative' in how the finished trick is presented. He has a subject (Magda) who isn't playing to an audience of onlookers, she's doing what is expected of her in the traditional role of a hypnotist trick... Yes, she's acting because hypnotism doesn't work like that, but what you see in screen isn't exactly how it's happening in the forest.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

StaryCat can I ask you ,as JA is choosing when his ignore function works and doesnt work regards me.

I've no idea who Stary Cat is

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Would you say Magda's behaviour to be any different to say Zombie Arcade man,Assassin man or indeed numerous other examples of Derren partcipants. As this seems to be a crux of John Albert's theory.

I'm not sure that it is. That Magda has been shown to be an actress is the crux of John's position. I'm not aware of if anyone has tried to identify any of the other past participants to see if they had acting experience. But I think the point is not whether DB always or even sometimes uses stooges, but if he has done so even just once.

On the whole I see her performance as nothing more than what was expected of her and she had obviously been 'primed' in some way beforehand (whether implicitly or explicitly, there is no way of knowing).
That the illusion of hypnotism can 'encourage' participants to 'play along' in an appropriate manner shouldn't be in doubt and DB gives many examples of people doing just that over the whole span of his TV career.

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Also this seems to be a defintion of "Dual Reality" which I stated earlier in my explanation of a possible mehtod,and JA seemes to scorn.

Well the method of the actual trick is peripheral to the main point. The trick itself is nothing more than a ring vanish/production, the addition of DB's phooey hynotism is just him putting his own stamp on it.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by silver birch

That episode was not a magic trick. It was contrived and fake hypnotism. Paul Daniels has never attempted anything as blatantly nonsensical as that.

"TV magician uses tricks to obtain results! Two guys on internet shocked and disappointed! Read all about it!"

[silver birch]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

No they didnt.They were prefaced with your written biased opinion of them.Which is indeed a "loadacrap".

My opinion of DB is biased, because its obvious he is performing a loadacrap.