I Keep Checking Derren's Twitter For A 'Later We Bought Him A Pony'.

[rionaleonhart]

Well, Derren Brown's The Gameshow was the most uncomfortable thing I've watched in a very long time. Probably the one thing of Derren Brown's I'd actively advise against watching. I felt quite ill. I shook all over. I almost cried at one point. It was meant to be horrible, of course, but - although it's obviously better than a programme that isn't aware it's horrible - that didn't make it much less horrible.

I sincerely hope that Dave stayed in that poor man's house and baked him a cake or something.

In looking at reactions on Twitter, I've seen a few people going 'WELL, THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING; OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO FOR THE MORE ENTERTAINING OPTION'. I don't think 'people will value their own entertainment over the comfort of another human being' is an insignificant thing to prove. No, that's not the problem with The Gameshow.

Here's the problem with The Gameshow: Kris should have been an actor. The Gameshow wasn't about the victim; it was about the audience deciding what happened to him. Remote Control was not a real show. So why did a real person have to suffer? Because it made better television, of course, which raises the question: what right do the creators of the programme have to judge the audience? (Ultimately, I suppose nothing really awful happened to him and my thoughts on his experience have been coloured by my constant fear throughout the programme of how far it might go, rather than by how far it actually went, but he still had a pretty rubbish night.)

The other problem with The Gameshow is that they were clearly nudging the audience towards the negative decisions - by referring to Kris as 'the target', by showing that clip where he admitted to cheating on his girlfriend, by emphasising that Kris was a practical joker. To Derren's credit, he did show us these little manipulations; he's said in the past that, despite being a massive professional liar, he doesn't want anyone to watch one of his shows and see something that gives the wrong impression through heavy editing. But I think the experiment would have been more interesting and meaningful if it had shown whether an audience without these little pushes would still have devolved to the point where they were baying for a man's property to be destroyed.

Not that the manipulation made the audience's actions excusable, but, if this programme was genuinely made in the spirit of investigation, it did probably muddy the result. Although I suppose it depends on what exactly the aim of the investigation was. If it's about crowds being easily led from without, I suppose the manipulation isn't a problem; crowds often follow a leader, after all. If it's about how the crowd mentality works from within, though, it could have been better executed. The Gameshow did make a point (the television, the kidnap - by that point I was genuinely astonished by the audience's conduct), but perhaps it could have made a better one. (EDIT: Oh, hang on, there's currently a clip on the Channel 4 website ('Derren Discusses The Gameshow') in which Derren mentions that the gameshow format is often geared towards manipulation and bringing out the nastier side of people, and that the same group of people obviously wouldn't behave like that on the streets, so the easily-led crowd hypothesis seems to be the one he's working with.)

The ending and this low-level manipulation were very much tied together. On the one hand, the ending certainly made an impact; on the other, that ending relied on the audience making consistently negative decisions. It was in Derren's interests to push the audience in a behaving-badly direction so he could break out the impressive ending and hit them with the consequences of their actions, but of course that means that he himself became in part responsible for those actions. The moral message would have been stronger had the audience followed their own path into iniquity. As it was, it felt a little like the bearer of that moral message led them into a trap.

I still think Derren Brown is brilliant, and I'm looking forward to the other shows in the Experiments series, but, no, I wouldn't recommend The Gameshow. It undermines its own message too much to make the intense discomfort of watching up to that message worth it.

Incidentally, why does anyone ever apply to take part in one of Derren Brown's programmes? HE'S JUST GOING TO DO HORRIBLE THINGS TO YOU. EVEN WHEN HE'S TRYING TO BE NICE HE DOES HORRIBLE THINGS.

(Speaking of intensely uncomfortable things: I watched the film adaptation of We Need to Talk About Kevin earlier this week, not having read the book beforehand (if I recall correctly, it took me about three pages to realise I couldn't get on with the writing style). I kept waking up in the night afterwards and having to imagine that Applejack, Rainbow Dash and Twilight Sparkle were gathered around my bed, ready to protect me from any Kevins that might come near.

I'm - I'm a grown-up.

We Need to Talk About Kevin is also flawed, incidentally, because, whilst perfect characters are dull, so are characters with literally no redeeming features. Why do we have to talk about Kevin? Can't we talk about someone more interesting?)

Comments

[kadrin.livejournal.com]

Much though I love her, I might have to sub out Rainbow Dash for Fluttershy in that situation. Fluttershy can overpower sociopaths with her Unending Power Of Scolding, and that way you don't get Applejack and Rainbow Dash in the same room, which is a room in which no one will be able to get to sleep ever.

[rionaleonhart]

...that's actually an extremely good point. 'Rainbow Dash' and 'good night's sleep' really don't seem to go together. I shall take your advice! ...in the event that I have to choose three fictional ponies to protect me from a fictional sociopath.

[kadrin.livejournal.com]

It's really mostly moot anyway. Applejack or Twilight Sparkle on her own could take down any number of fictional sociopaths, and the only reason I didn't include Fluttershy is that she might need to have a friend around to psych her up.

A friend who is, again, not Rainbow Dash. Again, I love her dearly, she's one of my two favourite ponies in the show (which are only very slightly above "equal second: all the rest of them"), but her attempts to psych Fluttershy up tend to have rather the opposite effect.

Anyway, my Googling is leading me no help; would you be able to say, in spoilertext or e-mail or something, what the reveal of the moral message was? I suppose it's just the Milgram experiment's "And you've all been manipulated into being bastards through peer pressure; you are all literally the Nazis at Nuremberg at this point and just lucky I'm not hanging you", but what were the specifics?

[rionaleonhart]

LJ, why have you disabled all the effective ways of rendering spoilertext in comments? I'm going to write this in white text, so it'll be invisible in LJ's default style. If you're viewing this in your own non-white-backgrounded style and you don't want to know what happened: look away now!


All right, so the audience, all masked for anonymity, have been making decisions about what happens to Kris, this poor guy who's being secretly filmed. At points they're given two options and they vote for which should happen by pressing A or B on a remote control. There's always a pleasant option and a less pleasant one, and the unpleasant options have been getting nastier.

So Kris has been accused of pinching someone's bottom, yelled at by her boyfriend, charged for drinks he didn't order, accused of shoplifting, told he's getting fired in a couple of days and now he's in the back of a police van. Also, the audience weren't actually offered this option, but when a producer was filming live inside the guy's house they started yelling 'SMASH HIS TV', which the producer duly did.

The audience are now offered the choice: when the police let Kris off with a caution and drop him near his house, should he A) be allowed to go home and receive ten thousand pounds, or B) be kidnapped by thugs and taken to an abandoned warehouse?

The majority vote for B, which is a large part of the reason I think The Gameshow does still make a point, even if it's a diluted one, despite being manipulative; that is definitely going too far, what the hell, audience.

The van full of thugs pulls up, they get out and try to grab Kris, Kris dodges them and runs, they give chase—

Kris is hit by a car.

The audience, clearly and unsurprisingly, feel like absolute shit.

The feed is cut off, the audience are left in uncertainty for a while, and then Derren explains to them that the man hit by a car was in fact a stuntman, that Kris has arrived home safely to a new television and a letter of explanation, and that this was an investigation into the phenomenon of deindividuation and, no, they haven't come off terribly well.

The end!

[prologi.livejournal.com]

I assumed that Kris WAS an actor, and portrayed as a bit of a dick on purpose, until the end. Uh. Wow. (Also wow: the continuity announcer. "Huh. Well then. And now, comedy!")

[rionaleonhart]

After the initial moment of shock at the end, I thought 'oh, thank goodness, he must have been an actor all along'. BUT NO. (The continuity announcer amused me quite a bit.)

[reipan.livejournal.com]

I kept waking up in the night afterwards and having to imagine that Applejack, Rainbow Dash and Twilight Sparkle were gathered around my bed, ready to protect me from any Kevins that might come near.

<3

See, it's things like this that are the reason I can't really get on with Derren Brown's programmes. Somehow the fact that nobody gets physically hurt doesn't make up for the amount of mental distress he puts them through, in my opinion, and given that most of the experiments he does rely on the participant not knowing exactly what's coming there's only a certain level of informed consent he can obtain. Fascinating, yes, but that doesn't make it less ethically questionable.

Hugs to you, my dear.

[rionaleonhart]

I'm curious about why this programme in particular made me so uncomfortable, when he's done pretty awful things before. It seems that my mind draws a distinction between Derren's usual brand of evil - manipulating people into doing awful things, for example - and just plain ordinary bad things happening to someone; apparently the latter distresses me a lot more. I wonder why?

IN ANY CASE I AM SAFE FROM DERREN BROWN BECAUSE I HAVE MY IMAGINARY PONIES TO PROTECT ME.

[rionaleonhart]

On an unrelated note, the file on my computer entitled 'merlinponies.doc' now contains over five thousand words.

[reipan.livejournal.com]

And that, my dear, is the best news I've had all weekend :D

[bubbles-san.livejournal.com]

 

[amy-wolf.livejournal.com]

Awesome!

[wehavethefacts.livejournal.com]

I went to see We Need To Talk About Kevin last week with a couple of mates and we were talking about it; I think we came to the conclusion that actually, Kevin isn't just an irredeemable bastard. We're getting the film from the point of view of his mother, who quite clearly wasn't all there herself.

Spoilers ahead, if anyone's wanting to avoid that:





I think the biggest clue comes in the scene just after she's given birth to him, where she's just sitting there blank-faced; compare that to how happy and involved she is when Celia was born and it's obvious something's up. I saw it as some kind of post-natal depression making her see everything he did as a deliberate slight against her; I mean, it's tough when you've got a particularly waily baby, and upsetting if they don't talk or play how you want them to, but he was a baby. It wasn't personal. And her treating him like he's deliberately ruined her life must have had a major effect on how he grew up. I think she was a bit delusional: she couldn't see Kevin as anything other than pure evil, but also did you notice she couldn't seem to see Celia as anything other than an absolute angel? She's not quite grounded in reality. So I think it's partially Kevin having some kind of developmental issues, quite a lot Eva's fault for how she treated him, and partly because Kevin really is just a bit of a bastard.

Also there was the bit at the end where Eva asks him why he did it and he says "I used to think I knew". I think that line made a major difference to me; he's done inexcusably terrible things, but that definitely looks like some kind of remorse to me (and then they hug, so remorse on both parts?).

I thought it was pretty awesome, anyway. I couldn't tell if I should be sympathising with Eva or Kevin or the parents of the other kids, or whoever. Everyone was so unpleasant but so pitiable. I also couldn't tell if it was a bit wrong that I thought the guy playing older-Kevin was fiiiine.

That said, the film still scared the everloving shit out of me.

(Long comment. Apparently, we do need to talk about Kevin and you have no choice in the matter.)

[amy-wolf.livejournal.com]

Ooh, it sounds interesting! I'd like to see it, and in theory it should be on IFC in America, but they're currently stuck on a run of Human Centipede movies.

[thewaterbandit.livejournal.com]

This might make you feel better! http://twentypercentcooler.net/lunaspiders an adorable Luna flash game based on the spider throwing game in 'Luna Eclipsed'. The fun has been doubled!

(Personally when I'm scared I like to imagine Princess Celestia backing me up, because there's not much that can stand against a physical goddess)

[amy-wolf.livejournal.com]

Okay, I have started watching (because my brain is horribly perverse) and I am oddly distressed by the opening "Get a vegan to possibly eat meat" bit. Of all of the things he's done to people, that's what's getting to me?

...except he just nearly got a guy to run off a cliff.

This is only going to get worse, isn't it?

[rionaleonhart]

WELL DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED.

Oh my God that door bit was terrifying. I keep imagining myself smashing through that door and the moment of realising there's nothing there to break my fall. And that was probably the least upsetting part of the show.

[amy-wolf.livejournal.com]

You're right. They should have used an actor. Because then, all of the "Look how we can selectively present information to make a person seem like a one-dimensional jackass you all feel comfortable mistreating" stuff could have been done without that one guy having his goofy underwear broadcast to an international audience.

Also, can I have some of the ponies to protect me from Derren Brown?

[rionaleonhart]

How could they continue to torment a guy when they knew he wore superhero underwear? I don't understand.

Derren Brown protection is probably a good idea, actually. You can have Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash. GOOD LUCK SLEEPING.

[darkest-alchemy.livejournal.com]

"Incidentally, why does anyone ever apply to take part in one of Derren Brown's programmes?"

This is what I keep wondering.

It was uncomfortable viewing and it would have been preferable using an actor instead of Kris but then he also applied to take part in the show so... he probably should have expected something shitty to happen to him. Heh

What disturbs me more though is some of the viewers reactions to the audience. There have been people on Tumblr calling them c**** and all sorts (and apparently some of them who said they were in the audience got anonymous hate messages after posting about it. That seems rather ironic to me). I think many people are rather missing the point entirely.

[yumiboo.livejournal.com]

I haven't had a chance to watch the recent episode yet (two days job hunting in Manchester = exhaustion, but it's on my Sky+ recording thingie and I have all day tomorrow to chill out so I shall be watching it then), but I have now been inspired to watch other Derren Brown episodes on 4OD.

Oh, also: Why do we have to talk about Kevin? Can't we talk about someone more interesting?
I giggled XD

[littlered2.livejournal.com]

I just watched it, despite having read the first few sentences of your post - it was, indeed, intensely disturbing. Even the bit at the beginning - I think I gasped with horror when it was revealed that one of the options was a straight drop onto concrete. I assume Derren was controlling it to avoid real harm (I thought he was nudging him to choose B on the first flip of the coin - he really emphasised "bang it on the back of your hand", or similar - but didn't notice him doing the same further on. Still, there could always have been a few people lurking in the background, ready to grab the guy if he chose the wrong door), but still, scary. And the main body of the show was much more so. I agree with you about the flaws in the format, and the way the audience were being encouraged to choose the more negative options. I think that was why the television-smashing was one of the most disturbing bits - while the audience could easily tell themselves, with the other things, "it's just a TV programme, there are no real consequences, Derren will fix things" (because he wasn't really going to go to prison or lose his job), actually destroying someone's property is a much more tangible thing that doesn't just cease to have happened once it's revealed it's all a game.

(I was actually also quite disturbed by moving his DVDs around, because since childhood I have been really scared of the thought that I might lead people to think that they're mad. If I moved things around or changed clothes or something while they weren't present, I would feel like I'd have to tell them, so they knew things had changed and they weren't losing their mind. I still feel the need to overexplain my actions.)