Derren Brown - The Events

[Ian Volante]

Yeah, we only saw a heavily edited snatch.

Was Sharon Stone a surprise guest too?

[Jon O'Neill]

Jon, we will never get to the bottom of this until you go to a live show yourself and volunteer. Should we be having a whip-round for your ticket?

Ironically, Jon is probably the only one here who has actually been hypnotised on stage.

[Rosemary Roberts]

Jon, we will never get to the bottom of this until you go to a live show yourself and volunteer. Should we be having a whip-round for your ticket?

Ironically, Jon is probably the only one here who has actually been hypnotised on stage.

Was he programmed to forget it?

[Jon O'Neill]

Jon, we will never get to the bottom of this until you go to a live show yourself and volunteer. Should we be having a whip-round for your ticket?

Ironically, Jon is probably the only one here who has actually been hypnotised on stage.

Was he programmed to forget it?

He was programmed to pretend he was pretending and then to pretend to deny it exists.

[Mark James]

There was a hypnotist at my college and members of the audience were asked to volunteer so I went up but was sent back as I "wasn't relaxed enough". I was stoned at the time so I don't know how much more relaxed I could've been. My friend who went up with me did get hypnotised but he said you're pretty much just playing along. My dad was hypnotised and he said the same thing. I suspect the hypnotist figured I'd be the kind of person who wouldn't (and he would've been right) and that's why I was sent back.

[Jon Corby]

Jon, we will never get to the bottom of this until you go to a live show yourself and volunteer. Should we be having a whip-round for your ticket?

Ha yeah, as Jono said, been there and done that. And I don't have any acting qualifications either Jono, but my act was so convincing that people refuse to believe me even now when I say "yeah, I was just playing along, I knew what was going on the whole time" (the reason being, as I've said before, a combination of being young, a bit drunk and wanting to be the star, but also because I hung in there because I wanted it to work, and then realised I was at a point where if I backed out now I would look really stupid, because I'd gone along with a few things already)

But anyway - back to the 6 thing - you really think you can "erase" the number 6 from somebody's memories just by telling them to forget it? What's 12 divided by 2? You can't remember your car number plate if it has a 6 in? The letters S-I-X mean nothing? What about songs with the word six in? Counting songs with it in? Etc etc. Come on please - it doesn't make sense at all that you can so dramatically alter your memories (and then back again) in a split second. The only thing that makes sense is if you're pretending, and applying the pretence to each situation as it is presented to you.

Jono, it's really, really easy to pretend too. You don't need an acting qualification. Have you never falsely denied knowledge of something before? We do it all the time. I'll be doing it later when my other half notices the tiny scratch made by a screwdriver head on the freshly painted wall of my landing. "Dunno. Must've been the kids or something."

[Jon O'Neill]

Jon, we will never get to the bottom of this until you go to a live show yourself and volunteer. Should we be having a whip-round for your ticket?

Ha yeah, as Jono said, been there and done that. And I don't have any acting qualifications either Jono, but my act was so convincing that people refuse to believe me even now when I say "yeah, I was just playing along, I knew what was going on the whole time" (the reason being, as I've said before, a combination of being young, a bit drunk and wanting to be the star, but also because I hung in there because I wanted it to work, and then realised I was at a point where if I backed out now I would look really stupid, because I'd gone along with a few things already)

That's part of the hypnosis though. It will work even better on people who not only don't want to embarrass themselves and the hypnotist, but also believe that they're actually getting hypnotised. Nobody's saying hypnosis is magic. But for most people the pretending just becomes the reality.

But anyway - back to the 6 thing - you really think you can "erase" the number 6 from somebody's memories just by telling them to forget it? What's 12 divided by 2? You can't remember your car number plate if it has a 6 in? The letters S-I-X mean nothing? What about songs with the word six in? Counting songs with it in? Etc etc. Come on please - it doesn't make sense at all that you can so dramatically alter your memories (and then back again) in a split second. The only thing that makes sense is if you're pretending, and applying the pretence to each situation as it is presented to you.

No, it's not "erasing" anything. There's no mind alteration. It's just the fact of being convinced that something is true making it become true... a self-fulfilling prophesy. You're not going to make them permanently forget something so deeply ingrained in their psyche like their name or the number six. It's basically impossible, just like getting someone to kill someone in cold blood.

Jono, it's really, really easy to pretend too. You don't need an acting qualification. Have you never falsely denied knowledge of something before? We do it all the time. I'll be doing it later when my other half notices the tiny scratch made by a screwdriver head on the freshly painted wall of my landing. "Dunno. Must've been the kids or something."

Haha, yeah, I'm not using that point as actual evidence of the hypnosis because it's too subjective. I'm not sounding convincing here, I know it, my argument sounds flaky as fuck. But I'm convinced of it. We're all hypnotised in certain ways. "Stage" hypnotism just takes it to an extreme.

[Jon Corby]

No, it's not "erasing" anything. There's no mind alteration. It's just the fact of being convinced that something is true making it become true... a self-fulfilling prophesy. You're not going to make them permanently forget something so deeply ingrained in their psyche like their name or the number six. It's basically impossible, just like getting someone to kill someone in cold blood.

So... they're pretending then. You can't convince yourself that you've forgotten something, it doesn't make sense. You're remembering it in order to pretend to have forgotten it.

[Jon Corby]

ETA actually, here's an interesting discussion though. Let's say everything happened as we saw it, but actually he really did give him a loaded gun. Stephen Fry is shot dead. Does our hero get charged with murder, or does Derren? What happens if, for example, in a play or TV shoot, somebody swaps the prop gun with a real one? Surely the actor himself who pulls the trigger isn't culpable? Is this situation any different because of the supposed hypnosis? (Has a court of law ever paid the slightest attention to the power of hypnosis?)

To go back to this (as I thought it was interesting and everybody has ignored it, or maybe they didn't see it and I'm just trying to draw attention back to it - don't flame me Gillard), would Chris (was that his name? I've forgotten OMG hypnoamnesia) have actually committed an offence anyway IF events were as presented? I'm rather hopeful that it is actually against the law to take what you genuinely believe to be a loaded gun into a public place, let alone then aim it at somebody and fire it. (Another reason to think Jono, that all is not at all as presented in the show)

[Phil Reynolds]

Ironically, Jon is probably the only one here who has actually been hypnotised on stage.

Wrong.

[Jon O'Neill]

No, it's not "erasing" anything. There's no mind alteration. It's just the fact of being convinced that something is true making it become true... a self-fulfilling prophesy. You're not going to make them permanently forget something so deeply ingrained in their psyche like their name or the number six. It's basically impossible, just like getting someone to kill someone in cold blood.

So... they're pretending then. You can't convince yourself that you've forgotten something, it doesn't make sense. You're remembering it in order to pretend to have forgotten it.

You can, and people do. Just like people do when they repress bad memories and have a mid-life crisis years later. It's doublethink.

[Jon O'Neill]

ETA actually, here's an interesting discussion though. Let's say everything happened as we saw it, but actually he really did give him a loaded gun. Stephen Fry is shot dead. Does our hero get charged with murder, or does Derren? What happens if, for example, in a play or TV shoot, somebody swaps the prop gun with a real one? Surely the actor himself who pulls the trigger isn't culpable? Is this situation any different because of the supposed hypnosis? (Has a court of law ever paid the slightest attention to the power of hypnosis?)

To go back to this (as I thought it was interesting and everybody has ignored it, or maybe they didn't see it and I'm just trying to draw attention back to it - don't flame me Gillard), would Chris (was that his name? I've forgotten OMG hypnoamnesia) have actually committed an offence anyway IF events were as presented? I'm rather hopeful that it is actually against the law to take what you genuinely believe to be a loaded gun into a public place, let alone then aim it at somebody and fire it. (Another reason to think Jono, that all is not at all as presented in the show)

My instinct says in the first instance, he is charged with murder. You can give evidence for the prosecution In the second instance he's not guilty of murder. But our law is quite fucked up. It is an interesting question.

[Jon O'Neill]

No, it's not "erasing" anything. There's no mind alteration. It's just the fact of being convinced that something is true making it become true... a self-fulfilling prophesy. You're not going to make them permanently forget something so deeply ingrained in their psyche like their name or the number six. It's basically impossible, just like getting someone to kill someone in cold blood.

So... they're pretending then. You can't convince yourself that you've forgotten something, it doesn't make sense. You're remembering it in order to pretend to have forgotten it.

You can, and people do. Just like people do when they repress bad memories and have a mid-life crisis years later. It's doublethink.

Or is it just an effect of the opposite of doublethink (as Wikipedia would have it), cognitive dissonance? I don't know.

[Jon O'Neill]

Four-in-a-row

[Richard Adams]

ETA actually, here's an interesting discussion though. Let's say everything happened as we saw it, but actually he really did give him a loaded gun. Stephen Fry is shot dead. Does our hero get charged with murder, or does Derren? What happens if, for example, in a play or TV shoot, somebody swaps the prop gun with a real one? Surely the actor himself who pulls the trigger isn't culpable? Is this situation any different because of the supposed hypnosis? (Has a court of law ever paid the slightest attention to the power of hypnosis?)

I think I can add something to this part of the thread, though I'm sorry I haven't seen the show you're all discussing. But I do remember a bit of criminal law from college days. I'd recommend it, particularly murder, as a fascinating area of study. People really do the strangest things, the facts of the cases are often interesting and so are the manoeuvres of the judges, trying to apply logic and consistency to weird situations.

Murder requires both of what the law calls the actus reus and the mens rea, loosely translated to mean (a) actually physically killing someone while (b) intending either to do so or, at least, to cause serious harm (or being reckless about this being a likely consequence of the act).

There are various defences to it, including automatism (not being in mental control of one's actions); if any of these are made out the charge of murder will be defeated but the defendant may well have committed manslaughter (murder but without the mens rea), in which case the judge has wide discretion as to the sentence to impose, everything from life imprisonment to an absolute discharge.

(Incidentally, there is no discretion in the sentence for murder; it is life imprisonment*: and it is because of this range of sentencing options that applies in one instance but not in the other that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter but denies the murder of Joanna Yates in Bristol, despite (apparently) having strangled her and (certainly) having killed her. Can't say I rate his chances very highly; I hope I don't have to eat these words)

No doubt the hypnotist would also be charged with similar offences. I don't see much moral difference between killing someone myself on the one hand and employing someone to kill someone on my behalf through the mechanism of money, or hypnosis, or whatever, on the other. If it's murder if I kill someone with a hammer, it must also be murder if I hypnotise someone, hand them a hammer and have them hit the victim on the head for me. Technically I think that it's incitement if I pay someone to commit murder on my behalf; if I remember rightly the sentences for incitement can be as stiff the sentence for the offence itself.

I suppose it would be an interesting twist if the hypnotist were then able to defend himself by proving that in fact there's no such thing as hypnosis...

*...which of course does not actually mean life but rather means fifteen years, though in certain circumstances judges may recommend that detention be extended beyond this.

[Jon Corby]

No, it's not "erasing" anything. There's no mind alteration. It's just the fact of being convinced that something is true making it become true... a self-fulfilling prophesy. You're not going to make them permanently forget something so deeply ingrained in their psyche like their name or the number six. It's basically impossible, just like getting someone to kill someone in cold blood.

So... they're pretending then. You can't convince yourself that you've forgotten something, it doesn't make sense. You're remembering it in order to pretend to have forgotten it.

You can, and people do. Just like people do when they repress bad memories and have a mid-life crisis years later. It's doublethink.

I think accepting that whatever goes on in the brain regarding repressed trauma can be simulated by some beardy trickster clicking his fingers and giving you a verbal instruction requires something of a leap of faith. I don't know why you quite happily seem to accept that people are pretending when responding to most hypnotic instructions, but not this one.

[Jon O'Neill]

I just don't think pretending and then convincing yourself that you're not pretending are that far removed from processes humans go through all the time.

[Jon O'Neill]

ETA actually, here's an interesting discussion though. Let's say everything happened as we saw it, but actually he really did give him a loaded gun. Stephen Fry is shot dead. Does our hero get charged with murder, or does Derren? What happens if, for example, in a play or TV shoot, somebody swaps the prop gun with a real one? Surely the actor himself who pulls the trigger isn't culpable? Is this situation any different because of the supposed hypnosis? (Has a court of law ever paid the slightest attention to the power of hypnosis?)

I think I can add something to this part of the thread, though I'm sorry I haven't seen the show you're all discussing. But I do remember a bit of criminal law from college days. I'd recommend it, particularly murder, as a fascinating area of study. People really do the strangest things, the facts of the cases are often interesting and so are the manoeuvres of the judges, trying to apply logic and consistency to weird situations.

Murder requires both of what the law calls the actus reus and the mens rea, loosely translated to mean (a) actually physically killing someone while (b) intending either to do so or, at least, to cause serious harm (or being reckless about this being a likely consequence of the act).

There are various defences to it, including automatism (not being in mental control of one's actions); if any of these are made out the charge of murder will be defeated but the defendant may well have committed manslaughter (murder but without the mens rea), in which case the judge has wide discretion as to the sentence to impose, everything from life imprisonment to an absolute discharge.

(Incidentally, there is no discretion in the sentence for murder; it is life imprisonment*: and it is because of this range of sentencing options that applies in one instance but not in the other that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter but denies the murder of Joanna Yates in Bristol, despite (apparently) having strangled her and (certainly) having killed her. Can't say I rate his chances very highly; I hope I don't have to eat these words)

No doubt the hypnotist would also be charged with similar offences. I don't see much moral difference between killing someone myself on the one hand and employing someone to kill someone on my behalf through the mechanism of money, or hypnosis, or whatever, on the other. If it's murder if I kill someone with a hammer, it must also be murder if I hypnotise someone, hand them a hammer and have them hit the victim on the head for me. Technically I think that it's incitement if I pay someone to commit murder on my behalf; if I remember rightly the sentences for incitement can be as stiff the sentence for the offence itself.

I suppose it would be an interesting twist if the hypnotist were then able to defend himself by proving that in fact there's no such thing as hypnosis...

*...which of course does not actually mean life but rather means fifteen years, though in certain circumstances judges may recommend that detention be extended beyond this.

Pretty cool, thanks for your insight.

[Gavin Chipper]

It would be a pretty cheap trick to swap the order of everything around. Even when he did the lottery dual screen thing he held up a cut-out snowflake at the end to "admit" it. I can't imagine he would sink that low, particularly when you can do it by hypnosis.

He could have thrown a goose at the side of a truck and people would have found a way of interpreting that as an admission of how he did it. His whole explanation of the lottery thing was a complete load of bullshit and I think people rightfully lost a lot of respect for him after that. Just showing a meaningless snowflake does fuck all to rectify the situation.

After that, you can't trust anything he says really. You have to go by what's realistic. And if the hypnotised killing of Stephen Fry has a whiff about it, it's not as if Derren has a solid reputation for honesty to fall back on.

[Gavin Chipper]

I love the fact that the adverts for tonight's show include a snowflake symbolising that the left hand side of the screen was frozen. (OK I know I got this from a link posted on here - I just find it genius).

Maybe, but then if he'd held up a goose, people probably would have read something into it.

Apparently I wrote this in this thread in 2009. Interesting.

[Matt Morrison]

Jon, did you happen to notice if anyone made any immorality-based queries to Stephen Fry after the episode was shown? I'm thinking Twitter and that. I don't know, it just occurred to me you'd get a more interesting response from talking to him on that side of things than you would via DB's blog comments.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Finding it hard to actually understand this, but I was watching HIGNFY so what have I missed?

[Andy Wilson]

it's not as if Derren has a solid reputation for honesty to fall back on.

This is fairly old news, but I hadn't read it before today.

[Peter Mabey]

There was a series of half-hour interviews with Derren Brown on Radio 3 at about 10.30 (in the Essential Classics programme) - if you can still get them on iPlayer, they are 90 minutes after it starts.

[Lesley Hines]

'Sa funny thing hypnotism. I've been "hypnotised" twice, once on stage on holiday in Spain and once for giving up smoking.

The stage one? I walked off halfway through. I started off by playing along for a laugh and then his requests got more offensive so I left. I wasn't bothered about making him look a twat as he'd saved me the bother already.

To give up smoking they started off with a chat and told me somewhere had produced a 600-page report that said that smoking wasn't addictive. Unfortunately I doubt it would take long to find 600 different reports that say it so, so the whole crux of their argument had kinda fallen at the first hurdle. Still, I was keen to give up and knew other people whom this had helped, so I figured it wasn't the time to get belligerent. The hypnosis proceeded to say that rather than wanting to smoke I would want to drink water.

Sure enough, the next morning I still wanted a cigarette, but I would have also sold my own granny and her dog for a drink of water. Weird huh?

[Jon Corby]

Derren's posted here again about how he doesn't stooges, and that "any statements he makes in his shows are true" which is a somewhat bizarre thing to say.

Oddly, my attempts to discuss how that girl in the seance isn't a stooge (she covertly draws her own X on a blank piece of paper in order to be "randomly selected" to be a medium, and then proceeds to (pretend to) channel the (not) dead girl) get quickly deleted from the moderation queue. How peculiar.

[Mark James]

'Sa funny thing hypnotism. I've been "hypnotised" twice, once on stage on holiday in Spain and once for giving up smoking.

The stage one? I walked off halfway through. I started off by playing along for a laugh and then his requests got more offensive so I left. I wasn't bothered about making him look a twat as he'd saved me the bother already.

To give up smoking they started off with a chat and told me somewhere had produced a 600-page report that said that smoking wasn't addictive. Unfortunately I doubt it would take long to find 600 different reports that say it so, so the whole crux of their argument had kinda fallen at the first hurdle. Still, I was keen to give up and knew other people whom this had helped, so I figured it wasn't the time to get belligerent. The hypnosis proceeded to say that rather than wanting to smoke I would want to drink water.

Sure enough, the next morning I still wanted a cigarette, but I would have also sold my own granny and her dog for a drink of water. Weird huh?

The whole quitting smoking thing is weird. I used to smoke a lot. Not just cigarettes. I found it quite easy to just stop though. I didn't need hypnosis or anything. I haven't quit though. Quitting for me means ruling it out altogether, I've not done this. I may smoke in the future, who knows? For the moment though I'm just not smoking. I had a cigar, a few cigarettes and a couple of tokes from a joint about six months ago at a wedding and haven't smoked since. Before that it was about a year since my last smoke of anything.

[Ian Volante]

I've heard this quite often - people just stopped without any sort of trouble at all. It often sounds like it occurs when people simply don't want to do it any more.

[Jon O'Neill]

You might say all smokers are hypnotised.

[Gavin Chipper]

I didn't get to see this last night - in my region they showed a very bizarre episode of Beadle's About instead. Was it any good?

[Phil Reynolds]

I didn't get to see this last night - in my region they showed a very bizarre episode of Beadle's About instead. Was it any good?

You might think the producers risked tipping Jody off as to what was happening to him right at the start by naming his fellow conference delegates after the characters in Cluedo, although I thought "Colonel Coleman" was a nice touch.

[Michael Wallace]

You might think the producers risked tipping Jody off as to what was happening to him right at the start by naming his fellow conference delegates after the characters in Cluedo, although I thought "Colonel Coleman" was a nice touch.

Yeah, I thought that was funny, but seemed a totally needless risk to take. If we start from the assumption that it's legit, and that the guy working out what's going on is a disaster, would you really think having a Reverend Green and a Doctor Black is worth it?

That said, even if it was a stooge, I still found it perfectly enjoyable - it's a cool story if nothing else.

[Jon O'Neill]

Yeah it was good comedy. I doubt the guy was a stooge. Sorry Corby.

[Michael Wallace]

Yeah it was good comedy. I doubt the guy was a stooge. Sorry Corby.

Yeah I really don't know what to think. I find it very hard to believe, but it's not like I have any evidence other than that I find it very hard to believe, so I can't really say anything useful/interesting.

I think what watching these shows has taught me is that I'm an incredibly sceptical person, and I need an awful lot of convincing to make me believe anything that I fundamentally find implausible (and that what I find implausible seems to be most things). I still found this show enjoyable though, since as I said, it makes for a fun story, and I enjoyed remote control because it seemed totally plausible to me. (I appreciate that what I think is/isn't implausible is pretty arbitrary, but that presumably goes for anyone.)

Edit: Actually, I think I've changed my mind. I think if you got most people absolutely wasted on champagne, and then took them outside whilst they were asleep (which I've seen plenty of youtube videos of people doing), then that could easily be all it takes to make someone sufficiently unsure of themselves to do what that guy did. (I still don't really buy the neck squeezing and bell chime stuff, though. Obviously this is well trodden ground (Pavlov, etc.), but I still find it a bit too implausible to do it so easily like that.)

[Jon O'Neill]

Yeah I think the champagne had more to do with it than the supposed guilt triggers.

[Mark James]

We don't fully know what's being said to him by Derren when he's in the suggestive sleep state. Probably something along the lines of, "tomorrow when you find out about a murder you will be compelled to confess to it". Just standard hypnotism.

[Phil Reynolds]

A lot of Jody's reactions to the strange stuff happening to him seemed 'overacted', but the most fake-looking part of the whole thing was when he left the house to go to the police station and Derren and the crew made out like they were panicking because he'd reacted unpredictably - when in fact he'd clearly done exactly what was planned, as evidenced at the end by the tearing down of the fake wall in the interview room. Had he confessed when he was originally seen by the police at the house, that big showy ending wouldn't have happened in that way and the denouement wouldn't have been anything like as satisfactory. I can't believe any of this was left to chance.

[Jon Corby]

Derren's posted here again about how he doesn't stooges, and that "any statements he makes in his shows are true" which is a somewhat bizarre thing to say.

Oddly, my attempts to discuss how that girl in the seance isn't a stooge (she covertly draws her own X on a blank piece of paper in order to be "randomly selected" to be a medium, and then proceeds to (pretend to) channel the (not) dead girl) get quickly deleted from the moderation queue. How peculiar.

Haven't seen Guilt Trip yet, so that discussion can wait for another day.

But, I did return from a brief holiday to find a message in my inbox saying that Derren had responded to my (deleted) comment (which never passed moderation) and reinstated it on the blog!

Exciting! Here it is:

Derren, what is the girl in “The Seance” who writes her own X on the paper and then proceeds to (pretend to) channel the (not) dead girl, if not a stooge? If you’re going to claim to have hypnotised her to do all of this, isn’t that a bit sneaky and misleading that it’s not even shown? You could claim that of anyone and anything, given that hypnotism is essentially just role-playing anyway. What’s the difference?
Jon – ah, you’re making too many assumptions, which was kind of what I was getting at in the article. Because you don’t know how it was done, you presume she must be a stooge. Failing that, you think she must have been set-up through hypnosis. Neither is true. There are cleverer, subtler ways of making it all happen there and then. And even if she had been set up through hypnotic instructions – which I promise she wasn’t – you’d criticise a magician doing a fake seance for being sneaky and misleading? You should see what those mediums got up to! You also make the presumption that hypnosis is just role-playing: again far too much of a leap. Did you watch the tests set up by the academics in The Assassin? – Derren x

Disappointing. It fails to address the point that she's clearly "in on it", and that this has been utterly concealed from the viewer. There's the implication that I'm missing the whole point by "criticising a magician for being sneaky and misleading" which isn't the crux of the matter at all, and closes by referencing the "tests set up by the academics in The Assassin"? Is he referring to that stupid acid thing, which "the academics" said proved nothing because they would have known it was all safe?

I'm not sure if it's worth replying, as I don't think he's ever going to address it directly (which is fair enough, I did think after I posted that it was a bit too explicit, so I did a second version which was less so, and also said I'd understand if he wanted to respond privately - so fair play to him for putting it on there though). The reinstated post slotted back in at the original time it was posted, so it's now lost in amongst a load of old posts.

I still got a kiss off him though, so fuck you guys.

[Matt Morrison]

I think you'd have to meet him privately to have a decent conversation, public Internetness is never going to be a satisfying medium.

[Michael Wallace]

I think you'd have to meet him privately to have a decent conversation, public Internetness is never going to be a satisfying medium.

I was about to post a joke about Derren being a 'satisfying medium', but then realised that it might have been deliberate on your part, so I'd look like a tit

[Matt Morrison]

I went "haha, I said medium!" and then didn't know if that made a difference so pressed post. One, both, or none of us look like a tit, I'm not sure.

[Jon Corby]

Bizarrely, before getting the email that he'd responded, I did have a dream that Derren came to stay overnight. So maybe that face-to-face conversation will come to pass.

[Mark James]

Disappointing. It fails to address the point that she's clearly "in on it", and that this has been utterly concealed from the viewer. There's the implication that I'm missing the whole point by "criticising a magician for being sneaky and misleading" which isn't the crux of the matter at all, and closes by referencing the "tests set up by the academics in The Assassin"? Is he referring to that stupid acid thing, which "the academics" said proved nothing because they would have known it was all safe?

I would say he meant more the tests where the guy was sitting in the freezing cold water. My understanding of hypnotism, from what I've heard from people who were hypnotised, is that you're essentially playing along and I guess that's what you feel is going on too but I don't think it adequately explains that sitting in the cold water trick. If the water is genuinely that cold and the thermal camera images aren't fake I don't know how that's achieved unless there's more to hypnotism than I think.

[Jon Corby]

I would say he meant more the tests where the guy was sitting in the freezing cold water. My understanding of hypnotism, from what I've heard from people who were hypnotised, is that you're essentially playing along and I guess that's what you feel is going on too but I don't think it adequately explains that sitting in the cold water trick. If the water is genuinely that cold and the thermal camera images aren't fake I don't know how that's achieved unless there's more to hypnotism than I think.

Fair enough, although I can think of a large number of ways to achieve those effects. I think Derren kinda relies on people automatically ruling a lot of these out though, under the banner of "but Derren wouldn't do that!", which I'm afraid I can't do.

[Jon Corby]

Yeah it was good comedy. I doubt the guy was a stooge. Sorry Corby.

Watched this last night. Yeah, it was kinda funny, but ultimately all bull. The guy (as in all these specials) isn't a "stooge", he's simply a big Derren fan who has applied and auditioned to be part of a Derren show, and knows full well the phony situation he's in and how he's supposed to play it.

[Joseph Krol]

Tonight's is just finishing, 'tis the finale. The place where it is set (Todmorden) is close to me, so might visit the statue for the heck of it.

[Gavin Chipper]

The thing with the punctures seemed a bit of a fix in tonight's episode. They asked the guy if he knew anything about fixing punctures or somethig along those lines, and said to the woman that they needed help pumping up a tyre, and generally made it sound like an easier task.

[Mark James]

Spoiler Alert.


The filming of the winning roll looked well dodgy. Glad for the guy though. And it was good to see Psychic Sally continue to make herself look an ass.

[Jon Corby]

The thing with the punctures seemed a bit of a fix in tonight's episode. They asked the guy if he knew anything about fixing punctures or somethig along those lines, and said to the woman that they needed help pumping up a tyre, and generally made it sound like an easier task.

Everything's a "fix" if you're gonna look at it like that! These aren't actual "experiments", I've got no issue with stuff like that particularly. Similarly, when we saw Wayne walk past that £50 - I'm thinking "how do you set that up?" Do you explain to Wayne that you need some "candid-looking shots of him going about his business" to weave into the show, just for production purposes? Hence we have him seemingly just walking along, but also actually concentrating quite hard on doing just that. Looking off into the distance to ensure he doesn't accidentally look down the camera.

Anyway, I enjoyed this (and gameshow) more than Assassin and Guilt Trip. There were some magic tricks, Sally Morgan got shown up a bit, and we met some nice people. Much better than shows with no magic tricks, and some unlikeable airheaded gullible sap knowingly playing along.

However - I still think the obligatory "message" which Derren seems to want us to take from the show could be misconstrued. Wayne isn't "wrong" to throw unsolicited scratchcards that arrive through his letterbox in the bin. He certainly isn't "wrong" not to play the lottery etc like others do, particularly if his life savings amount to £1k. And it certainly isn't a good thing to gamble your life savings on the roll of a die (unless you're fairly well assured that actually you're not going to lose!) The intended message of "make the most of your opportunities" could be misinterpreted as "gamble!" I fear.

[Gavin Chipper]

The thing with the punctures seemed a bit of a fix in tonight's episode. They asked the guy if he knew anything about fixing punctures or somethig along those lines, and said to the woman that they needed help pumping up a tyre, and generally made it sound like an easier task.

Everything's a "fix" if you're gonna look at it like that! These aren't actual "experiments", I've got no issue with stuff like that particularly.

This is the problem you get when Derren conflates trying to make some sort of point with trickery. He's a magician who pretends that he's making a valid point, but he still uses his tookit to help it along a bit. It wasn't billed as a trick. It's possible that the different wording was just chance, but I doubt it, so I think it's just Derren trying to pass off bullshit as something else.

However - I still think the obligatory "message" which Derren seems to want us to take from the show could be misconstrued. Wayne isn't "wrong" to throw unsolicited scratchcards that arrive through his letterbox in the bin. He certainly isn't "wrong" not to play the lottery etc like others do, particularly if his life savings amount to £1k. And it certainly isn't a good thing to gamble your life savings on the roll of a die (unless you're fairly well assured that actually you're not going to lose!) The intended message of "make the most of your opportunities" could be misinterpreted as "gamble!" I fear.

Indeed. I think the whole show was a bit crap actually.

[Jon Corby]

Wait for tonight. It is because he has used the split screen technique that he will confess all and therefore demonstrate it is impossible to predict the lottery numbers - it has to be a trick. Other "confessions" of the past where he was shown tossing a coin and getting heads ten times in a row had him revealing he took days to do it, being filmed continually, and when it finally happened just used that minute of film. Also, the horse racing programme where the woman won a fortune on re-investing her winnings for each race, finally revealing that over a thousand people had taken part and she was featured as she was the most successful. So, when he uses trickery he confesses after the event, but for other feats involving his skills, he rightly keeps quiet.

Just to come back to this, I'd been doing a bit more digging around this 9 hours coin-tossing business, following a debate with somebody elsewhere about Derren. They'd said something along the lines of "... but he tossed that coin for 9 hours ..." as proof of some other claim that he'd gone to great lengths to achieve something (when I was arguing there was a more mundane explanation), and when I suggested that it was much more likely he'd just fake the footage than waste 9 hours, they wouldn't have it.

So I went back and watched again. Derren introduces the piece with his usual sincere speech (which he's been reminding us on his blog lately 'when I make statements into the camera, they're always truthful. C4 lawyers wouldn't let me yadda yadda') about how what we're about to see is genuine footage in controlled conditions with fixed cameras which won't cut away, and a normal coin with one side heads and one side tails.

And the footage starts, split screen with Derren standing on the left, and a close up of the bowl to collect the result of his tossing (snigger) on the right. Derren says he's gonna toss 10 heads in a row, and does the first toss. Here, the camera cuts (hey, I thought there were gonna be no cuts?) to a slightly longer above shot in slo-mo, where we can clearly see a coin spinning, and yes it definitely has heads on one side and tails on the other. And then we cut back. We see the coin hit the bowl. Heads. Derren picks it out and tosses. Heads again. And so on, obviously to ten heads. The close-up on the bowl is so close, however, that we never see the coin in flight, instead we just see it as it tends to slide down the edges of the curved bowl. Derren always picks it up carefully so as not to show the other side of the coin to the overhead camera. This seals it for me - he's clearly using a double-headed coin. The cut-in is supposed to subtly convince the more casual or one-time-only viewer that the coin is legit, but the other camera angle is so (unnecessary) close that we can never see the coin in flight, and the shape of the bowl means it doesn't really tumble much. As if he'd spend 9 hours producing footage while making no effort whatsoever to show us both sides of the coin, and indeed seemingly setting everything up to prevent us doing so. Obvious fake.

But no, apparently that's not convincing enough.

So I went back again. This time I noticed that the coin in the air in the slo-mo shot clearly has 2006 on the heads side, whereas the coin that lands repeatedly in the bowl is 2004. Hmm, odd. But then, the cut-in is from a slightly different angle to the overhead camera, and is clearly just an insert for effect (so could have been done at a completely different time and location even), so maybe it's not that conclusive in itself. Nonetheless, I remembered that later on in the show, he explains how it took 9 hours, and as proof we see some tails appearing, as well as Derren corpsing on his lines, saying he can't see the bowl anymore etc. Surely they wouldn't.... but, yep. Derren starts to explain how eventually you'll get 10 heads in a row, and we see 2004 head after 2004 head dancing into the bowl. Then we see some where it went wrong, and was abandoned - head, head, oh noes tail! Rewind a bit, and the head preceding the tail is a 2006 coin! Surely that clinches it? You're not gonna suggest that they kept swapping coins as they got too sweaty or something, are you?

Nope, still not convinced.

What?

So this time I go back to the ten tosses, and pick them apart frame by frame. And it's only on the SEVENTH toss that I can finally capture this:



Head enters the bowl at the bottom, turns on its side... to another head.

In the meantime, the guy actually has come back and accepted that the appearance of the 2006 coin in the 'out-takes' section is proof enough, and that he'd misinterpreted it to start with as just appearing in the slo-mo shot. But there you have it. In your face, Derren. But seriously, how careless is that? If I was gonna do a similar trick to my kids (let alone on TV to be watched by millions and likely to be replayed and studied in detail), I'd make sure I had the legit coin with the same year as the double-headed one! And as I say it was only on the 7th toss that I could catch the head turning over - suggesting that it wouldn't have been much more effort to do a run of ten spins which stood up to even frame-by-frame scrutiny. But the date thing - I mean, it's asking to be caught out, isn't it?

The amusing thing is that despite going to these lengths, I'd already stated that despite not believing it, I didn't really think it made a huge amount of difference either way, as the point he was making still stood. But hopefully it'll make some people see that all Derren's statements that he insists are genuine (including statements stating that such statements have to be genuine) are, frankly, bullshit.

[Matt Morrison]

Have you linked to this post on his blog, or posted this elsewhere? Good detective work.

[Jon Corby]

Have you linked to this post on his blog, or posted this elsewhere? Good detective work.

Haha, as if that would pass moderation on his blog! Should I try?

The original argument is on digitalSpy. I've just linked on FaceBook.

[Matt Morrison]

You should try. It might not get posted but you might get private contact from Derren or something!
And keep us up to date with all responses please - love this.

[Jon O'Neill]

Maybe the REAL point of his shows is to troll people like you.

I would like to think so.

[Jon Corby]

Maybe the REAL point of his shows is to troll people like you.

I would like to think so.

Haha, I remember my earlier criticism and skepticism of Derren provoking some angry responses from you. I'm guessing this is all borne of a bit of confusion, frustration and embarrassment at having your beliefs deconstructed. It's okay, I understand.

[Jon O'Neill]

Maybe the REAL point of his shows is to troll people like you.

I would like to think so.

Haha, I remember my earlier criticism and skepticism of Derren provoking some angry responses from you. I'm guessing this is all borne of a bit of confusion, frustration and embarrassment at having your beliefs deconstructed. It's okay, I understand.

Well, in light of a lot of his more recent shit (as well as your Sherlock Holmes-esque detective work) I would reconsider some of my earlier stances.

But honestly, above frustration and embarrassment I feel bemusement at how personally you take the fraud by people like Derren Brown and Sally Jessie Raphaelle or whatever her name is. I mean, I can't even get worked up over Sally extorting millions out of people by duping them. I just find it hard to care, which is why I think I'm so bewildered at how long you spend on this stuff.

[Jon Corby]

Eh, what can I say - I like arguing and pummelling people into seeing things my way. It makes me feel like a big man.

[Michael Wallace]

Just caught up with this thread after finally getting around to watching the lucky dog one. Didn't really see the point of that one, it was fun seeing how easy it is to start rumours and trick people into thinking they're lucky or whatever (also hahaha Psychic Sally), but otherwise it was just a bit meh. Also, £1,000 life savings? That's pretty impressive (and foolish to gamble, imo).

Edit: Oh yeah, my main reason for posting was to say hahaha maazing, at Corby's double headed coin discovery. That is really awesome dude.

[Mark James]

Head enters the bowl at the bottom, turns on its side... to another head.

Sorry Jon. As much as I agree that Derren is full of shit when he says all his disclaimers, I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the video. It ends up as heads sure but I can't fully make out it being heads as it enters the bowl. I'm not saying he didn't use a two headed coin I just don't think this video shows it. Camera frame rates being what they are might not fully pick up the coins movement either. I'd stick with the changing dates on the coin ahead of the video as the damning evidence.