• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Derren Brown: Master Mind-Manipulator

Would someone mind taking a moment to explain to us in the Colonies how the show was structured? Was there any scope for jiggery-pokery, i.e. loading blanks, signals between the "chosen" participant and DB .etc.
I'd loved to have seen it.
 
even if the guy finaly selected were a plant, what a showman, it certinly looked as if he'd ballsed it up when he fired an empty chamber away from him and the look on his face during that long pause... fantastic, all 3 people that were in my house were watching with our mouths open on the edge of our seats... great stuff:yeay:

beats gawping at a boring old charleten getting his nutients suplyed in clear liquid form while texts from stoke on trent and girls with dubious taste in men roll along the bottem of the screen, anyday.
 
Hmm - I wasn't convinced by the 'live' rounds selected, or by the firing of the gun by the armourer or Derren Brown. I know they made a big deal about blanks, but there's more than one sort of blank. But anyway, of course it was all set up in some way beforehand, even if the people who were chosen to go through all the preamble weren't. Call me jaded, but because all such stunts are are complete setup from the start, I fail to find them at all nerve-wracking, etc...
 
He showed you how he would do it at the start with the man on the street hiding the necklace under the mugs. It was under the first mug, just as the bullet was in the first chamber. I'm not sure if the firing of the empty chamber into the sack was showmanship or not, but Hans Moretti couldn't have done it any better. Except he'd have done it in front of a shimmering, glittery curtain or something.

Plus he could have got it wrong, just like he got a word wrong in the mindreading of the last five candidates. I suppose he had to pick the most suggestible one.
 
Darren Brown's Russian Roulette

Started this as a seperate thread in 'Chat' but it got moved..

Saw this last night, and found it hugely entertaining.

The BBC news site is running a 'was it immoral for channel 4 to show this'. What do we think ?

And what was the deal ? Was he really entrusting his life to second guessing his subject ? Do we think there was some elaborate illusion going on, or did he just promise him lots of money to put the bullet in chamber 1.
 
Gun nuts

I think it was legit, thats what he does from what I know - detects subtleties that tell him crucial titbits about his subject.

I dont think the program should ever have been made however. I am a gun nut myself and its incredibly hard fighting the tidal flow of [IMHO government sponsored] bad feeling, I really dont think stunts like this help. Guns are not toys and they are deffinately not for Russian Roulette, nasty.
 
I guessed it'd be in chamber one. Did you notice how he was talking to that terrified Bambi just before and during the gunloading?

'It doesn't matter which ONE you chose, just chose ONE and stick to it. Don't change your mind once you've chosen ONE.'

Oh yes, Mr Goatee, one is onto you!:D
 
Dansette said:
I guessed it'd be in chamber one. Did you notice how he was talking to that terrified Bambi just before and during the gunloading?

'It doesn't matter which ONE you chose, just chose ONE and stick to it. Don't change your mind once you've chosen ONE.'

Oh yes, Mr Goatee, one is onto you!:D

After the show, I wondered if he'd done something like that. I didn't notice it at the time, but afterwards I wished I'd videoed it to see if he was being primed.

Funnily enough, both of us watching it guessed he would pick Bambi, and both for the same reason - if I was going to trust my life to my ability to read a person's non-verbal-communication & to suggest a course of action, then I'd pick the most nervous looking bloke out of the pack.
 
Dansette said:
I guessed it'd be in chamber one. Did you notice how he was talking to that terrified Bambi just before and during the gunloading?

'It doesn't matter which ONE you chose, just chose ONE and stick to it. Don't change your mind once you've chosen ONE.'

Oh yes, Mr Goatee, one is onto you!:D

Yes - but even so, ONE suspects that you wouldn't entrust your life in the fact that you have mentioned the word ONE on a number of occaisions.

It is all far more complicated than that - the suggestion part is just the climax of a whole process of rapport and anchoring etc. (ha ha - thanks Emperor for the links - I now know all the jargon!).

Perhaps you could try doing the cup trick on someone just by saying ONE on a number of occaisions - it won't work. It is only then that you realise how difficult Derren's feats are.

I thought it was spectacular TV - a real showman. It is not often that TV can really make you genuinely worried - and the disturbing pause after the "mistake" was a stoke of genius.

Keep 'em coming Derren.
 
I must admit to being a tad nervous too - it's obviously a trick for the reasons mentioned above, but the best TV I've seen in a long time IMHO :)
 
Bilderburger, don't be so cynical! :)

There was obviously a big build up to it, doing lots of conditioning - maybe he just kept saying 1 so that people like me could say 'hey, I know how he did it!'.

I was bloody terrified. That long pause nearly voided my stomach. Bloody amazing. Much better than sitting in a box. How exactly is sitting in a box entertaining? I do that all day at work!
 
Oh come on guys - you really think he was going to actually shoot himself? :p
 
I too (TWO) was aware of the 'choose ONE' instructions being 'subliminally' given - so I picked chamber FIVE instead.

Interestingly - Derren pointed the gun away from him when pulling the trigger on chamber FIVE.

I wonder if ONE and FIVE are the commonest numbers to choose.
 
I can't wait for the Christmas, 'Out Takes and Bloopers Special', where we see the TWO previous takes where the trick went messily wrong, with hilarious results! :D
 
LOL, Aunties Bleeders, or It'll Be All Mush on the Night.

I had got the bearded / pony tailed chap down as the plant so it just goes to show i cant read minds.
 
Dansette said:
Bilderburger, don't be so cynical! :)

Ha ha - being cynical for not being cynical.

:D

Where does he go from here? Is there a new series coming up? I don't think he should carry on raising the stakes. I enjoy his work in public situations - the expressions of pure amazement on people's faces are fantastic (and so much better than the David Blaine style public with their doubled up "oh man, no no no NO NO NO - man - oh shit - man - oh gee, boy, man, NO NO NO" just before they explode in overacted mysticism.)

The one where he makes the bloke forget his underground station is a pure classic.
 
Bilderberger said:
The one where he makes the bloke forget his underground station is a pure classic.

I liked the 'Jedi mind trick' at the Dog Track where under his instruction the a punter convinced the women on the Tote desk to pay out on a loosing betting slip, apparently just by telling her to check again....
 
Timble said:
I liked the 'Jedi mind trick' at the Dog Track where under his instruction the a punter convinced the women on the Tote desk to pay out on a loosing betting slip, apparently just by telling her to check again....

What makes that one so special is that the ticket has to go through a machine to pay the money! It is not just that he has tricked her into seeing a winning ticket - but the machine processes it as a winning ticket. I am dumbfounded.

Absolutely stunning.
 
I think the guy is just a genius, absolutely remarkable. I could barely watch.

He was a few years ahead of me at school, but I don't recall him patrolling the corridors using mind control on the teachers. Oh, and he went by the more pedestrian first name of "Darren" in them days.
 
Dog track trick: As I remember, the woman only paid out when Brown said "This is the dog you're looking for." and handed over the ticket. (The bloke he was with tried it and failed.) Of course he won - he'd bet on all six dogs and switched the ticket just before handing it over.

'Russian roulette' trick: Gun rigged not to fire on any chamber. Bag rigged with explosives or a second gun and an accomplice involved. He just wouln't risk his life for an illusion.
 
Atch said:
Dog track trick: As I remember, the woman only paid out when Brown said "This is the dog you're looking for." and handed over the ticket. (The bloke he was with tried it and failed.) Of course he won - he'd bet on all six dogs and switched the ticket just before handing it over.

'Russian roulette' trick: Gun rigged not to fire on any chamber. Bag rigged with explosives or a second gun and an accomplice involved. He just wouln't risk his life for an illusion.

I'd say wrong on both counts. The whole point about his act is that he eschews any of the Blainery involved in conventional magic. It's all about getting inside peoples' heads.

After the betting stall staff had paid out on the losing dog tickets, they were interviewed asking why they did it: they could only explain it as a feeling if disorientation and confusion that left them thinking they were halfway through paying out on a winning ticket. It's the same with the tube journey. He's manipulating facets of the way the brain works to confuse the people involved. So when he taps the counter and says: "this is the dog you're looking for", he's executing a psychic trick, not sleight of hand.

As for the rouette - yes he would risk his life in this way. It's the ultimate demonstation of his abilities. He's saying "I'm so sure I know what you're thinking, I'll bet my life on it". Picking an especially pliant subject and working out which number he'll choose from 1-6 is at the bottom end of his abilities.
 
I totally agree - and my reaction to the whole "it is just sleight of hand and/or fixed through trickery" theories may explain some of my apparent "cynic" type posting above.

What Derren does is perfectly understood and agreed theoretic (and via other means practical) understanding of psychological techniques. There is no doubt that these things can work and do work.

He openly acknowledges that it is through (mainly) NLP and, to a lesser extent, hypnosis, that he achieves what he does.

For me, the fact the he can use these techniques to such impressive and devastating levels are the genius of what he does.

We can all read the techniques - they exist. Some people have a natural attribute to perform these techniques - some people work hard and are able to perform these techniques. Others are just greats showmen.

Derren Brown combines the three - the secret to his work is pure hard work and an ability to use these techniques more effectively than others (just as some people could spend their lives training to run the 100m and still not be able to run sub-11 secs, Derren has a mind that enables him to utilise these techniques like a 9.8sec runner).

Add to this his showmanship - and you have a compelling combination.

To explain his performance by conventional trickery just misses the point - IMHO.:)

On that point, were Derren's performances to be revealed as mechanical trickery - I would be a very upset and disappointed person.
 
Conners_76 said:
As for the rouette - yes he would risk his life in this way. It's the ultimate demonstation of his abilities. He's saying "I'm so sure I know what you're thinking, I'll bet my life on it". Picking an especially pliant subject and working out which number he'll choose from 1-6 is at the bottom end of his abilities.

I don't think he was risking his life in anyway whatsoever - he just (obviously) did a good job convincing alot of people that he was actually doing so. I still fail to see why this sort of trick is raising so many eyebrows. It's a bit like saying a magicians' assistant is risking her life by letting the magician saw her in half ;)
 
JerryB said:
I don't think he was risking his life in anyway whatsoever - he just (obviously) did a good job convincing alot of people that he was actually doing so. I still fail to see why this sort of trick is raising so many eyebrows. It's a bit like saying a magicians' assistant is risking her life by letting the magician saw her in half ;)

Yes - fundamentally - you are right.

He is just performing an old trick (which he has mastered and performed many times before) in a more threatening environment.

It is showmanship - it makes it more interesting.

However , that fact should not detract from what he actually did. I guess it is something to do with the whole "would I put myself in that situation?" I mean - the confidence level that has to be reached before someone is willing to put themselves in that position is incredible.

As for the lady in the box - that is different - she just jiggles around and gets in the right position to miss the saw/sword/spear - whatever. It is a physical illusion that can be practiced. The Russian Roulette trick relies on pyschological mastery - something which, to the general public, is less easily understood.

It is, therefore, a more mysterious and (ironically) magical trick.

P.S. Well, its a theory isn't it?;)
 
JerryB said:
I don't think he was risking his life in anyway whatsoever - he just (obviously) did a good job convincing alot of people that he was actually doing so. I still fail to see why this sort of trick is raising so many eyebrows

Things can go wrong you know...

LINK
 
I'm with Bilderberger on this one - using plants, props, camera tricks, sleight of hand, etc. rather defeats the point he is trying to make that he is just using well studied techniques to undertsand, influence and control the mind.

I'd imagine he had 3 safeguards (in order of importance):

1. He would have had the guy firmly under his control (see my links above).

2. If he had got it wrong he would have spotted how nervous the guy was and stopped things.

3. I doubt anyone would actually blow someone elses brains out live on TV (or more accurately they will have got rid of those people in the filtering process).

Where does he go from here? Anywhere he likes - I love the simple stuff like the one with the Mastermind board game. I suspect there will be a lot of pressure on him to raise the stakes but I know I am happy watching the less 'flashy' stunts - leave that to the cheats, frauds and charlatans as far as I'm concerned.

Emps
 
Bilderberger said:
It is, therefore, a more mysterious and (ironically) magical trick.

Hmm, I dunno. I'm still not convinced - if you take all that time to preamble a trick, the trick itself is secondary. It's the run up that gives the audience the frights - a similar effect used in horror films for years ;) IMHO, the actual trick itself wasn't at all convincing, (taking into account Brown's highly successful way of getting peopel to do things without realising it) so I thought it was a bit of an anti-climax. The stuff in the preamble was interesting, but aside from that we all knew that he wasn't really going to shoot himself.

And it's not the same as the ol' 'bullet catching' trick ;)
 
Yes - and we all know the ending when we watch Casablanca (or, insert favourite film here) - however, it still gives pleasure.:)
 
I'm quite a grounded person (I believe), and I can see that there's no way Channel 4 would have allowed a man to blow his head off on live TV, even if the only means of protection was to have a tranmission delay.

But I was genuinely scared last night that I might bear witness to Brown's death. This is surely a testament to the power of the build up that you describe above. An almost willing suspension of disbelief.
 
Back
Top