Appears the Mark Wootton / Shirley Ghostman / UK comedy shows Little Duke Productions / Verses story has some additional legs, with quite a few people being drawn into being filmed without realising that they’re part of a project… that has more in common with ‘Borat’ and John Saffran than a Scorsese or Spike Lee.
Which got me then wondering – what’s ‘Ambush Skepticism‘ all about then in comparison? Maybe I’m just confused…?
Firstly – the experience of Darryl Hannah – film diary in the Observer, UK:
It turns out that, a little way off, Hannah was introduced to a “director” who looked to her to be far too Central Casting to be true. There were three cameras and 15 crew members, which she knew to be too many for a nature documentary. The “director” then took her to meet a “research scientist”, a woman in a miniskirt and lab coat who was peering from under too much blue eye shadow into the distance, supposedly looking for the perfect “condor release spot”. The scientist told Hannah that she herself had been fed by condors in the wild for three days, at which point Hannah started to laugh, and pretended she needed to use the bathroom.
She calls her manager. “I’m telling you, that was a full-on Punk’d-Borat situation,” she says. “The whole thing was a big ‘let’s make fun of celebrities’ show.” (Later, when I Google the production company named on the release forms, Little Duke Productions, all I can find is a random warning on someone’s Twitter feed: “Beware of Little Duke Productions for Showtime. May be dangerous. Please RT.”) The manager promises to look into it.
Indeed, if you look on Twitter, there’s a few angry realtors – this is due to Michael Shermer’s discovery of a ‘tweet’.
In the meantime, the Skepticality Message Boards has another experience, this time from the skeptical poster, Charlie Mount – “‘Psychic’ Shirley Tears Up My Theatre”:
Last night the psychic “Shirley” caused two fights at my theatre company — Theatre West, in Los Angeles. The police had to be called. Apparently he tried to drug another psychic at a restaurant down the street. All during a taping of some show. And the whole thing threatened to destroy the set for “Gaslight”, the show I’m currently directing.
I wasn’t there, but apparently it was quite a scene…. Dave told us this morning that “Shirley”, who’s a guy (and not really a psychic — which we figured out this morning), picked two fights during the taping, and wasn’t allowed to finish shooting his section of the show. Apparently it was like Jerry Springer in there, with the crew holding him down, and Dave bravely defending my set from flying chairs backstage. Apparently all this started because of an accusation that Shirley tried to drug one of the other psychics earlier at the Canteen restaurant on the corner.
After hearing all this I checked out Shirley and discovered that he’s an English comic (in the Borat mold) and that his Shirley psychic character has a “show” of some sort in England. Honestly, I don’t know if this is hilarious, or cruel, considering David felt that he was in some real physical peril last night.
Anyway — Gaslight opens August 28th! That’s what’s important.
Of course, we know why Michael Shermer is continuing to follow through on this case – he and Brian Dunning have an account of what happened to them (’Shirley Ghostman Vs Shermer and Dunning‘) and understandably, they’re a little sore. But is it entirely true that Shermer was somewhat ‘on to them’ from the start? Why not just walk away from the start like Darryl Hannah did?
Brian tested psychics on hidden drawings, all failed miserably but during our wrap up dialogue of Brian and I, one of the psychics burst… into the studio pushing a cart with a body bag screaming he had Lee Majors in the bag, because earlier he said Lee would die today, & wanted… his $50,000 prize from Brian, dreaming and ranting, either a total psychotic break or an Andy Kaufmanesque punking of us so I unzipped bag…and found a guy dressed up as the Six Million Dollar Man!
At what point does it cross the line and become real damage – like this account where someone who was trying to run a business felt they were in danger of being hurt? Property being damaged?
Speaking of ‘what’s so funny’ – are the following pranks being suggested on SkepticBlogs by Mark Edwards meant to be ‘punking’ suggestions in the same light? From SkepticBlogs:
Are your gloves off yet? Now how about moving on from Guerrilla Skepticism to more targeted Ambush Skepticism? We certainly have plenty of whack-jobs out there to choose from. These days, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Here’s some ideas and please don’t take them too seriously, I’m merely suggesting possibilities. If you do any of these performance pieces, please get them on camera: [my emphasis]
…When you go to any sort of psychic event, confuse them. Offer them nothing: no feedback. If you can get them to talk to you before paying, (not likely, but possible if you can charm them or act really dumb) ask no questions and make them sweat for their money, …then refuse to pay them. When they act outraged, calmly remind them that nothing they said is true and without proof of what they have told you about the future they have taken money under false pretenses. Try and do this in open air situations where plenty of people can see the commotion. Only pay up as a last resort short of police intervention.
“Cops as Props” for the cause? Really? I am reminded one again of George Hrab talking about being ‘level-headed’ at Dragon*Con (see the fifteen-second mark in that YouTube link for what I mean). Big thanks by the way, to Charlie for summing it up so well!
Is Shirley Ghostman / Mark Wootton doing the same sort of ‘performance pieces’ then? Is one person’s ‘wack-job’ another person’s celebrity ripe for a feature on a comedy show? How many of us enjoyed ‘Borat’ (confession – no, I was grossed out…)?
If Little Duke Productions or Verses felt like we’re the ‘wack-jobs’, does it make it okay? What if it was against-the-set-rules ballot-stuffing on an internet-voting-led competition to ensure a skeptic won the grand prize? Or sneaking into VanPrague’s psychic show without paying? Or storming the stage of Oprah? Mark Wootton got funding and a production company behind him. Skeptics have much less in comparison – so that makes it okay?
If police are being called away from investigating serious crimes by these pranks, it’s not okay? Or if people are being financially or career-wise done out – if they’re a psychic or otherwise?
Or is it only when someone steps back and says ‘I don’t think I want to be a skeptic if this is how we’re represented by our “heroes”‘?
Maybe I am just confused about what’s considered ‘fair game’. But then, I hardly refer to myself as anything more than ’skeptically-minded’ these days…
One thing I do know. Go see Gaslight, opens August 28th at Theatre West in Los Angeles for some genuine, scripted entertainment that will not get you a reputation for being either end of the spectrum of kill-joy dullard or idiotic prankster. I think you’ll have more fun that what may happen to Shermer if he follows through on that suggestion he has made above on Twitter.
![[Valid RSS]](http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9879/validrsscf0.png "Validate my RSS feed")
{ 7 comments }
Okay – I find Shirley funny. Shoot me. I thought that they came across as someone poking gentle fun at the skeptics and were so CLEARLY OTT that they couldn’t be seen as being pro-woo.
But trashing a theatre? Throwing chairs? Okay, that kind of thing should at least have been cleared by the venue well ahead of time and certainly not making someone who (at least I thought) came across as a comedian-who-made-fun-of-their-psychic-character look like a good model.
Borat is so over anyway. If the skeptics start taking it on too, then it’s just making an old joke carry on and become even older. At least Chris French had some dignity when he was being clearly made fun of. I enjoyed watching that more.
Okay, here’s the skinny: the production team and Wootton will win this round. Every time. You’re walking onto their turf. They’re running the show. They have final edit, they got permission to make the show and they have airtime (unlike, say, Skeptologists).
If Michael Shermer protests this, it just gives them more footage. They have more power to spin it as they like.
What people could do is talk after the fact. Get the media to do a ‘how far is too far’ story, much like this blog post.
Barraging around trying to ‘one-upmanship’ with pranks is silly. In the end, the winner is the one who is getting published, getting credentials, rather than falling around being the clown.
Brian Dunning just wrote some more about what it was like from the start: http://skepticblog.org/2009/06/11/not-skeptical-enough/
UPDATE -
Message from Michael Shermer on Twitter:
Ah, Brian Dunning just got a note from the producer of the Marc Wootton show saying that the point is to make psychics look like idiots……and that in fact the producers are skeptics in support of our work. Shirley Ghostman is punking psychics, not skeptics. Good to know……but now I’m mad at myself for not realizing who was punking whom. Alas, I think I need to apply my own philosophy of using humor here.So, Wootton/Little Duke Productions, if you’re all skeptics making fun of TV psychics…GO FOR IT because if anyone needs punking it’s them!
Two thoughts! “What goes around, comes around” and “Do unto others, before they do unto you”. SS
I have a question – is it okay for Dunning to complain about being exploited, while he thought it hilarious to replace the photo of a Russian cosmonaut in his presentation with a more ‘attractive’ woman when presenting on the stage at TAM7?
“Even more upsetting was the fact that Brian Dunning of Skeptoid thought it hilarious to replace the photo of a Russian cosmonaut in his presentation with a more attractive woman because the Russian was too ugly. Right.”
I’d like to know if misogyny and sexist attitudes like ‘we need sexy skeptic women and we’ll only pay attention to sexy babes in our presentations’ is seen as ‘getting people into skepticism’. I find it more of a turn-off than the antics of some UK twat.
… CC, I guess you can always contact him via Skeptoid?
Comments on this entry are closed.