Bloggers vs. 'the law'

A lot of people think that Bloggers are just people voicing their opinion and don't actually make a difference to issues that are happening. Well one boy from Wales (yay! Wales!) took on a Texan Medical Clinic and WON after it claimed success in unproven medical treatments.

The full story is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/29/schoolboy-blogger-us-clinic

What I think is amazing about this story is that even young people that blog can make a difference. This clinic were charging thousands of dollars for unproven medical treatments for terminal cancer patients. Dr. Burzynski and his clinic claimed that they had a cure for cancer, aids and malaria. Obviously, someone is going to find out that they are exploiting ill people and stick up for them, so why threaten a schoolboy just because you think you are better than them? 

The Texan medical clinic obviously felt threatened by Rhys Morgan because the things he was saying were true, however, I think it is disgusting that the man representing the clinic felt it necessary to take a picture of the boy's house on Google Earth, and send him it in an email. This was an attempt to intimidate the boy into giving up on his argument against the clinic and the threats against him. I suggest you take time and read rhys' blog about the threats from the man representing the Texan medical clinic as it is invaluable information for bloggers all over the world!

Link here: http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/11/threats-from-the-burzynski-clinic/

Mr Marc Stephens claimed to represent Dr. Burzynski and his clinic but never actually gave Rhys a copy of what the clinic found offensive and untrue. He didn't even tell him who he worked for, and Morgan couldn't find any records of a lawyer in the US under that name. Clearly a lack of professionalism here. And the fact that Mr Stephens undermined the intelligence of Rhys Morgan was clearly a mistake. 

If anyone tries to undermine a blogger, remember, we are much more intelligent than you might think!

Sorry this wasn't a normal type of blog but I just thought this story was a fantastic example of why bloggers take time in what they are doing. If it wasn't for Rhys Morgans actions, several other bloggers would have faced 'legal action' by Marc Stephens.

Did you know they've removed the word gullible from the dictionary...?

Derren Brown is someone that annoys me very much. I used to like him; he's entertaining, provides lighthearted jokes and spectacular illusions that you can't quite understand. But that's all they are, illusions, so why do thousands of people get sucked into his acts and believe that he is controlling people and objects with his mind? I'm not one to abandon beliefs of the paranormal because I know some of it is very very hard to explain, but when something is so blatantly staged, why do people believe it?

In terms of the theatre, the act he puts on stage is of a very high standard! You can't see any wires or markers where things are supposed to land etc. and all of his stunts are fluent and believable. Heck, I used to believe them at first, because he is a very clever man. He understands the human mind and how to manipulate it into making people think that illusions are real, but once you see past the smoke and mirrors, it's hard to believe him anymore.

A typical Derren Brown performance entails of audience participation, normally in a theatre or a large space of some sort, and a goal, of which he always achieves. This is fleshed out with videos of him 'manipulating' a 'member of the public' into doing something they either don't want to do, or have 'no idea' of ever doing (a very good example of an actor reading a script). I agree, this is very good entertainment! Believing that someone can control someone else into doing whatever they want is mind blowing, but if this was true wouldn't many more people be able to do this?

I'm starting to lean more into my own opinion now, so lets look at how good of an entertainer Derren is. 

His stage presence is magnificent. Having a following of people that hang onto your every word is a rare thing to have, and he has managed to achieve it with his professional act. I'm not exactly sure how he goes about doing his stunts, and I wouldn't want to ruin it for you anyway, but I do know that they are only stunts. The way he uses video in his live shows almost confirms that he has no 'magical' powers, only the powers of film and television special effects. Most films he makes will have been shot time and time again to get the different camera angles needed to construct an interesting piece of footage, and it is so easy to find a fairly good actor that can pull off a script because of the amount of unknown actors out there. 

He also has a good knowledge of explosive effects (or at least has the contacts to be able to create explosive effects). For example, his recent show involved him playing 'live' Russian Roulette onstage and on live television with a supposedly live round. Just thinking about this stunt flags up so many opportunities he has into creating this stunt safely whilst still making people believe it is happening. Firstly you can buy blank rounds that look like live bullets so even when an unsuspecting audience member is asked to check that the bullet is real, it looks real! But then again, how is an average British person going to know what a live round looks like? Then, when he finally shoots the 'live' round at a sandbag, the sandbag ends up having a bullet hole pierced into it. How does this happen? Film/theatre effects! Little explosives packed into a sandbag to simulate a bullet cutting into them.

Common sense would tell you that Derren Brown is just an illusionist, but yet people are still gullible enough to believe him. Yes, he is entertaining and No, my goal is not to dissuade people against him, but the amount of evidence and common sense there is against him being the real deal is massive. People are so gullible that Jersey police have had to confirm that in his latest performance "There was no live ammunition involved and at no time was anyone at risk" because of complaints that people were leaving with the police (Lenny Harper, Article by Steven Morris, The Guardian, Wednesday 8 October 2003). If you seriously thought that an entertainer was going to threaten his life when he has many more ideas on how to make money out of his talent, then I'm afraid to tell you that you are very gullible. 

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone and I do believe that Derren Brown is a very good entertainer, but that's all I see him as, a very clever entertainer. If you disagree with me please tell me why in the comments because I do want to hear your ideas! If you want to try and convert me into thinking he is the real deal, go ahead! Tell me what you think about him and the use of special effects in theatre and film.

:D

Reality: can it be recreated effectively?

Photograph: Thomas Hoepker/Magnum, 11th September 2001

On reading The meaning of 9/11's most controversial photo by Jonathan Jones (guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011), I realised how many different ways body language can be read in just a small snapshot of reality. First impressions of the photograph make you think that the group of young adults are just enjoying the sun, casually chatting away and not giving a care in the world as the smouldering ruins of the World Trade Centre lingers in the background; this is what caused such controversy for photographer Thomas Hoepker. My first thoughts on this photo were naïve. Because we are drip-fed stereotypes over the years, my initial thoughts were that these Americans are arrogant and callous, not taking any notice to the horrible scene that is behind them. Then I thought well maybe that's a bit harsh...

Nowadays, with the ever-growing number of photoshopped pictures and photographs, it is hard to find a raw, original copy of a snapshot, which is why my next thought was maybe this photograph is a fake. Was the snapshot of the 'relaxed' group of adults taken before the incident? Was the smouldering skyline added into the picture after to create drama and controversy? Apparently not. Reading through the article by Jones, it states that the people in the picture were "in a profound state of shock and disbelief" (Walter Sipser, 2006). Now, this statement alone puts a whole new meaning to the photograph. It shows us that the apparent casualness of the picture is actually shock. How can we misinterpret that? Is the body language of these two emotions so similar it’s hard to differentiate between the two? Or is it in fact a trick of the eye; seeing a picturesque foreground rudely interrupted by a major international disaster?

"Well, you can't photograph a feeling." - Jonathan Jones, 2011

Now, if I put this into the context of my field of study, we can see a huge problem with displaying true reality on stage, and the re-staging of true events. If we are misinterpreting real life photographs in their original form, how is it even possible to effectively recreate this piece without conforming to naturalism or falling into the trap of over-acting the emotions needed to copy this scene?

If we were to think about re-staging this scene, and the events before and after this snapshot, we would have to consider the underlying emotions: anxiety, shock, disbelief, fear, etc. But how do we convey these emotions to an audience? There are lots of little gestures and behavioural codes to suggest we are shocked, like covering your mouth with your hand and your eyes wide, but as you can see in this photograph no one is doing this! This is because the codes we have learned to identify are drilled into us from day one. We see the staging of a pub brawl on Eastenders or a death on Holby City, but all these programmes are just littered with the conventions of portraying emotions, but in reality, when you are in a true state of shock and disbelief, for example, you go numb and have no idea what to do with yourself.

Would it be sensible to try and mimic real life? If it is so hard to interpret the real emotions behind the people in this photograph, would it be just as hard to transpose it into a live performance and interpret the emotions of the people then?  

Now here is the thing I’m battling in my head… Could we create an effective piece of theatre that mimics the behaviour of the people in this photo as we see them? I’m not sure it would. Obviously, we would understand the scene’s atmosphere straight away if we picked out the essential emotions and emphasized them into a performance, but this would be edging towards naturalism and not a copy of real life. If we copied this scene by every single detail, it might leave audiences feeling confused by the situation, not sure whether the people are shocked, confused or indifferent about the devastation that is happening behind them. We expect, in a theatre frame, to be challenged or entertained in a performance, not to experience daily life, theatre is an escape from that, but still many producers/directors are interested in making theatre as real as it is physically possible.

On the other hand, we encounter similar situations of shock and horror in everyday life (obviously not to the scale of 9/11 but we do), so maybe we would be able to understand this scene, but when you’re in the theatre frame, you interpret things a lot differently to a scene in a site specific performance. Site specific performances can be spontaneous and immersive, therefore you wouldn’t know whether you were watching a performance unless you bought tickets or recognized the conventions of a performance. We could move away from the conventions of a performance (or at least make them subtle) and recreate the scene in question and see what the audiences’ reactions would be. Then, and only then, would it be possible to make a performance look as real as physically possible – avoiding causing an international disaster for the sake of a drama piece – and see if people can tell the difference between real life and performance.

I feel like I’m confusing you now but you understand how complicated it is to try and copy real life situations and put them into a performance. I would love to get a group together and test all this out! (I may do so and update you with my findings!)

Basically, it would be a miracle for a scene like this to be performed and confused for a real life situation. You could take away the scene of the burning skyline, replace it with the new reports from that day and make people think you have just heard the news and are acting accordingly to the behaviour codes of the photograph, but still, could it be good enough to confuse with a true scene?

I want to hear your ideas on this! Can you create an effective piece of theatre in this way? Or is it just physically impossible? Give me your feedback! (Even if it’s several pages long I want to hear it!)

:D