Some very interesting pointsts are broughtup in this thread. Ian Rowland has brought up some of the most interesting. It is just as much a lie, to credit what you are doing to NLP or body language as psychic ability. And no doubt some audience memberswho are carelees with their money, will waste it trying to accomplish something presented as entertainment only. But how, much responsibility does the entertainer have to his audience? If you say it's all an illusion, are you obligated to expplain the methodology. And howv much do you diminish your impact, by saying it's illusion? I don't see actors breaking the fourth wall by turning to the audience and saying "Remember it's just a show"
Second the point, how much should you do on tv that can't be duplicated in the "real" world. I had a tv show for 7 years. Not of the scope of Derren's I doubt more than 100,000 viewers watched any one show. But mostm of the money I made was from shows booked as a result of the show. I tried to do mainly things that could be done in those venues as well. Perhaps, in the UK, the tv performance compensates adequately to eliminate the need for other work
It's a thin line to be walked
from
Ford

Thanks for the clarification, Alex!

Erm... I'm thinking...

Is there any kind of danger... that making tv shows "too good" is a kind of "anti-exposure"?

I mean, could it harm the art? If people start believing everything is stooged... that will make them worse volunteers for US, the non-TV performers.

And I am also very confused about the whole NLP issue. I think the problem isn't that people are gullible, I think the problem is still WE (or well... I guess I mean ME) don't really know what to think. Is it bad to say it's all tricks? Or not? If I call it tricks, am I "harming" those who don't? If I say I can do it because bla bla bla, won't veryone want bla bla bla, whether it's aromatherapy or something sacred that grows on cow's dung?

I mean, if someone I knew could read minds and stuff, and told me why they could read minds, I'd try to get there too. Save me money on books for one thing.

Anyway, I haven't seen the MC shows, so I guess I'm in the wrong thread again.

/bamba

I think being accused of using stooges is an age old problem, particularly for mentalists.

This used to bother me, but less so these days. Using a stooge could be classed as "cheating", but is the actual method employed any less of a "cheat"? It could be viewed as merely a means to an end.

i will concede though, that if you ever were caught using a stooge, it could run the risk of undermining everything else that you do, no matter how good or clean.

So is the issue here merely one of audience perception? On the stage, parlour or close-up, the performer will generally involve many audience members so that the idea of stooging does not occur. But on TV... there's always going to be the cynics sitting at home in their arm chairs. But, as an example, none of these armchair cynics have made much of a dent in, say, Mr. Geller's success.

Personally, I really like the way Derren Brown is taking our art. From my discussions with laymen they seem to buy the 'psychological' explanations as credible, certainly more so than psychic ability.

Let's face it, until we can do this stuff 'for real', we're going to have to use jiggery-pokery, and come up with some pseudo-explanation to account for our special skills.