I know I'm late to the game, but was it just me that sat and looked on in unfolding horror at the Truman-Show-meets-Hunger-Games that is Derren Brown's "Apocalypse"?
Fascinating? Yes.
Impressive? By all means.
Ethical? Not so sure.
For those of you who missed the joy of it all have yourself a read of the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown:_Apocalypse
Before I get started I want to mention that I, like many, was not too convinced that Steven Brosnan was actually for real and not an actor. His actions all felt a bit too good to be true, etc etc etc; but Derren Brown insists that he never misleads the audience using actors calling it "artistically repugnant and simply unnecessary", so I shall choose to believe him on that.
I haven't seen many of Derren Brown's shows (three in total now I think), but I hear he's become something of a legend/hero/superstar amongst the people. In fact, it feels a bit like he's being taken on as a kind of modern-day-Jesus - someone who can perform awe-inspiring tricks and spoon-feed morality but without challenging the safety of our sceptical and agnostic viewpoints. He is impressive, extremely skilled, a great showman and very good at reading people. Ten years or so into his career he is top of his game with millions of pounds of budget at his disposal; plus, it seems, half the minds of Britain at his disposal too. In response to his cleverness, smoothness and moral high-ground, thousands of people are willing to sign away their lives to him in exchange for a bit of excitement. I hear, from someone who has filled in the form, that you sign to allow Derren Brown and his team to do pretty much anything to you (I looked for a copy of the form to link to, but can't find one).
The question I have for you is this: does this level of consent automatically legitimise taking over someone else's life and mind to the level that Brown did in "Apocalypse" - i.e. does anybody have the right to that much power over another human being?
Well my overwhelming reaction to this is no - no amount of signing forms and ticking boxes to theoretical scenarios should give someone else the power to manipulate, trick and frighten someone else over a period of MONTHS in order to prove a point. Even if, even if, Steven had known that he might be selected (he was specifically told he wasn't selected in order to ensure the success of the illusion - which, in my opinion, doubles the wrongness of the whole thing), I believe that this is candid camera gone far too far. The first issue here is scale - the vastness and length of the project. Where, folks, do we draw the line? At what point will someone turn around and say, "hey dude, you can't just take over someone else's life like that just for TV!" When it's six months? A year? A lifetime? Hey, we're back to the Truman Show already! I don't want to sound sensationalist, but it really isn't that far off things which we would say would never happen in our society. I think I would have said, a few years ago (or even 24 hours ago), that it would never be allowed in our country for someone to manipulate someone else's world-view and life for more than half a day or so.
But it's ok, because it's Derren Brown and he has some big moral point to prove. Right?
Which brings me to my second point: What right does Derren Brown have (or even Steven's mother, for that) to decide what is wrong with a young person's life and then to manipulate and frighten them into becoming what Brown deems as "better" or even, "the best you can be"? Brown actually agrees with me that one shouldn't decide what another should be or believe, stating: "I am an entertainer first and foremost, and I am careful not to cross any moral line that would take me into manipulating people's real-life decisions or belief systems." This has, I believe, been utterly undermined by the very concept of "Apocalypse" and I would suggest that fame and power have somewhat gone to his head. The whole concept is a bit right-wing really isn't it? Here's a young layabout - he ought to get his life sorted out and we should assist him in doing so. Maybe David Cameron is the true illusionist and has hypnotised Brown and is using him for the betterment of society?! Oooh has anyone else noticed that Brown sounds rather like Cameron? Maybe Brown IS Cameron!! There's a theory for you.
Anyway, back to reality. Yes, Steven himself admitted, his life was a bit of a mess and he could use his time so much better; but does it really need a zombie apocalypse to help somebody to change and realise how lucky they are? In fact, is that even really the best way to go about it? (I can't believe I'm even asking that question!) It almost feels like an insult to those people who have no choice but to appreciate what they have because they live in a world where everything is unsafe and you could lose your family at any time. Surely Steven's life is Steven's journey to travel in his time and as things come - isn't that the best way of learning anyway? I'm talking about a bigger moral issue here - does one human being get to decide how another should live their life? And if they have the power to change them, should they? (If you answer yes, then you are, I'm afraid, advocating mindsets that support/ed slavery, domestic abuse and fascist regimes).
My third point is about the issue of consent itself. Consent should only let us go so far without it becoming abuse of trust. People can be vulnerable or just not nearly imaginative enough to think through the kinds of scenarios that they could encounter. Not only this, but within consent is an implied get-out-clause - "yes I consent, but at any point in the process I should be able to say no and stop." Consenting to begin something is different to consenting to remain within that situation. Steven didn't have this choice because he didn't know there was something to get out of. This is the same issue with sex/rape - a person should be able to say no, no matter how far they have got. I imagine some of you are thinking that Steven had no issue with the way he was treated, to which I reply that Derren Brown selects his volunteers/victims specifically because they are "suggestible" or malleable and so less likely to question what is going on around them, and therefore the judgement of others. It might also have been a very different story with another person, but Brown is convinced he understands people well enough and has a good enough team of psychiatrists on set to guard against that. I, myself, am sceptical as to the extent to which Brown actually cares about the people he uses for his shows. He comes across as quite a nice person and is certainly intelligent, but we cannot give one person that much power to decide for another, not even with consent.
So, to my final point: if (it's a big "if") Derren Brown does indeed have the right or even duty to "help" Steven to improve his life and family relationships, what right do we have to watch that process? What good does it actually do us? I say the same of the Jeremy Kyle show and similar programmes. This, my friends, is entertainment very thinly veiled under the cloak of moral guidance. If Derren Brown really wanted to use his power to change Steven's life he'd go and knock on his door, take him out for regular coffees (which he can definitely afford) and chat to him, as someone Steven admires, about his life and where he'd like it to go. That would probably change Steven in a much deeper way than a zombie apocalypse which is, quite frankly, one huge (granted, fun) publicity stunt. Steven would see that someone he admires is interested in him, cares about him, wants to give him encouragement and advice and all that can be done without the ABSOLUTE TERROR that was inflicted on him by Derren Brown's preferred methods. If I'm wrong, then what are we advocating? Hypnosis as the way to improve society? Woah there....
And, if Brown really feels that terror is the best way to do things, why didn't he just walk into Steven's house with a gun and hold it to his mother's head and achieve the whole damn thing in five minutes rather than five weeks?
Yours pretty grumpily,
Blanched Almonds
No comments:
Post a Comment