孪生陌生人

同卵三生子→三个家庭→Louise Wise Services →Dr Neubauer →私人基金会和华府 从头到尾: 体验奇妙→经历狂欢→发现黑暗→超越疯狂 生存条件、教养方式、家庭成员、社会环境都是被精心计划和安排好的，非自然选择，非自由意志，被观察被记录被分析被研究。通过掌控几对同卵双生子的命运以及牺牲掉几个家庭的知情权，以便使主试在探索人类永恒课题的时候可以获得一劳永逸的结论。 “我深信因为这项研究，这三个男孩没有幸福的结局” 这项实验之不人道，堪比华生对小阿尔伯特所为，即便在五六十年代是被包容的，从任何角度看，“玩弄人类都是错误的”；但过程和结果也确实很有吸引力，无论是在当时还是现下，尤其是封存档案中那些被删减的内容随着Dr Neubauer 的离世被永远带进坟墓，成为人们最想探知又无法再次触碰的部分。 它是不朽的，是唯一不可复制的，同时也将永远遭受质问和谴责

Tim Wardle’s engrossing documentary tantalizingly promises audience to unearth the truth behind its newsworthy vintage hoopla of three Jewish identical triplets, separated by birth, serendipitously reunite after 19 years in 1980 when two of them are matriculated in the same college, but a conspiracy theory looms over their initial adoption polices, all issued by the defunct Louise Wise Services agency, and slowly, the film traces back to a nurture vs. nature twin study initiated by the late Dr. Peter Neubauer, a renowned child psychiatrist.

Those three triplets, Robert Shafran, Edward Galland and David Kellman, each has been selected by Dr. Neubaurer’s research team to grow up in a foster home of different economic tiers, accordingly, blue-collar, middle class and upper class, with regular visits to film and record their behavioral patterns without telling each family the truth, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the research is unethical to a fault, but it is also clear to understand that, when temptation is that high - to acquire a chance of purely studying genetically identical specimens without any cross-contaminating external inferences, ethics can be easily compromised, this is what the film hits home with, although Wardle verges on over-exploiting sentimentality to this reviewer’s taste.

Told through various talking-heads effusing on the beggar-belief discovery, the film is noticeably edited to coalesce an intriguing narrative by filmmakers carefully choosing what information can be divulged along the way, for one thing, it never loses that lucidity in it. But conspicuous by his own absence, since Robert and David are the main raconteurs, very soon, the absent Edward’s fate starts to cast an ominous undertow, so by the time the bean finally been spilled, we have already built up enough ballast to accept it with spiraling curiosity of its raison d’être, unfortunately, Wardle skirts over it, one might second-guess because the family has its concern of their privacy, but still, it is somewhat disheartening, one cannot just lump the reason behind a person’s suicide to a simple medical term like “manic depression”, there is much more factors in the play, everyone knows that, therefore this obvious cop-out hamstrings the film’s sensibility and impact.

Graciously allowing different voices being uttered in the mix, and predictably veering back to the nature vs. nurture debate for its closure (please do not torment Eddy’s foster father who has already lost a son, he is not the one to blame and of course nurturing is substantive, that differentiates us from animals) when the ongoing investigation hits a cul-de-sac, Dr. Neubaurer’s research report has been officially sealed in Yale until 2066 (why particularly choosing offspring of mentally disturbed subjects? That leaves a big question mark!), THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS is a documentary fashioned in its safest route to allure a mass audience (which it did with a whopping $12.3 million box-office receipt stateside), but relative to its sensitive and contentious subject matter, the outcome is less than enterprising.

referential entries: Malik Bendjelloul’s SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN (2012, 7.3/10), Sarah Polley’s STORIES WE TELL (2012, 8.2/10).

200228 /

好奇怪，感觉热评里的大家跟我看的不是一个结局。片尾分明已经呈现了多种视角，剪辑也没有耍心眼，既没有给Nature vs Nurture下定论，也没有将内容落在这里，而是回到了道德问题，即最后二位的发言。落幕时采用那一句“使在转角处遇到另一个自己变成可能（大意）”的确有煽情嫌疑，但理解为讽刺也未尝不可，毕竟前文一再强调了这种迪士尼式的梦幻发展是受人为操纵的。

至于“电影重点应该在批判这个实验上，而不该提出Nature vs Nurture”，我觉得真要这么拍，那才是煽情巨作，就非常浅薄和片面了。这部片子的内容挺多层的，要批判实验就必须提到实验目的和年代背景，而它就是在叙述这些。我虽然对这方面了解尚浅，但也可以大致解释如这个实验和斯坦福监狱实验等上个世纪美国心理学、社会学的实验总是伴随着伦理问题的原因：那会是这几门学科新兴的时期，很多规则尚未成型，需要时间来走向成熟。时间一长，问题出现了，美国因此新添了不少具有针对性的法案，更是确立了至今仍具有重要地位的Institutional Review Board，它直接受到国家机构管理，用于探讨伦理问题，更有绝对的权力制止在道德层面具有高风险的实验（60年代时类似的组织还未出现）；电影里提及的zz问题，也是在说这整个制度，所以对“不公布研究结果”的种种推测真不是一句“阴谋论”可以概括的。

不过不得不说，随着更多真相被发掘出来，我感到一阵阵的恶寒。在没有约束的情况下，人能想出多少残忍的“新奇”和“里程碑式”的尝试啊，分离亲生手足，欺瞒领养人，在儿童成长过程中隐藏已知的亟待处理的问题，用别人的人生来试探真理，而且当时无人感到内疚——真是今日的人们无法想象的。档案封存时间超一个世纪就是莫大的无声誓言：虽然我看起来是在保护受试者，其实只是想要等到我也挂了之后再挨骂，毕竟遗声余价总不能穿透泥土和棺材板吧。

总的来说，我觉得这部片子信息量已经够大，态度不偏颇，将许多问题摆上明面，对于不了解的人是很好的入门引导。但是作为仅一个半小时（甚至还可以压缩）的视频，面对本就有太多疑点和矛盾的话题，它的时间有限、呈现方式也有限，要想全面了解相关信息，当然不能只仰仗这一部纪录片。

很欣赏里面给纽约客写文章的严谨的小哥，对于想要讲述的内容，他会去寻找该领域的权威依据，去研究论文。这也是我想要拥有的毅力

平常的工作日夜晚，看了一部非常引人入胜的电影，吊诡的是的是特别精彩的戏剧情节，居然是一部真实的纪录片。洗完澡，还沉浸在戏剧化的感叹中，人生如戏，而不一定都是童话剧。

电影从三胞胎的戏剧化相认开始，生命中出现了另一个double的自己，不仅震惊了学校，也震惊了各方媒体。报纸头条的争相报道下，更令人惊讶的是还有第三个自己。分别被领养的三胞胎兄弟，居然在不同的家庭中长大。兄弟们只顾着相遇后的新奇与意外得到；养父母们却震怒在孩子们的被迫失去。同一个领养机构，却刻意分开了他们，他们被人为的拆散了。养父母们期待的诉讼，在不为人知的情况下一次又一次的流产了。三兄弟沉寂于他们的相遇，这段离奇的故事也被众人放大咀嚼谈论着。David Bobby 和Eddy还一起开了triplets的餐厅，第一年就赚了盆满钵满。可是人生的走向不是我们期待的一帆风顺，万般皆美。三胞胎最终还是分开了，因为丢失的十九年童年的相处，血缘之浓也无法弥补生活之琐碎和冲突。童话落幕，人生开台，三个中的eddy最终自杀离世。三胞胎的故事充满巧合但只是序幕。一位记者发现，这其实是一项心理学的研究样本，三个兄弟有意被放置在蓝领、中产和富裕的三个不同家庭中抚养；而研究机构每年都会定期家访，上帝视角般的看着这群应该相识却不认的骨肉们。

影片的开头，为我们展示了三胞胎诸多的相似，喜欢同样的香烟、同样的运动、甚至同一类型的女生。有那么一刹，突然觉得你人生剧本是否落地前就已经冥冥之中写好了篇章。可令人欣慰的是，三胞胎娶了不同的妻子，而每个妻子眼中的丈夫都是最帅最优秀最与众不同的那个，即使他们看起来根本一模一样。纪录片最后带有巨大的指向性和惯性，为了解释艾迪为何命运不同。中产阶级的他父亲是一位军事化纪录化的教师，而似乎他们父子间没那么多语言的交流而关系看似一般。David虽生活在蓝领阶层，好似拥有了大家都最喜欢的开明的父亲，从而他感谢他的一切源于此。bobby一直在影片中反问为什么走的那个不是他，他宁愿代替艾迪。艾迪父亲动容的问，是否自己少教育了些什么，才让艾迪走上了这么一条命运之路。

我也曾不止一次的问自己，我如何成为了我。先天和后天在激烈的拉扯了什么？人生之路到底是用什么铺筑的。影片正能量的灌了狠狠的鸡汤，强调了后天培养可以改变很多。另外从科研角度，人为的分开了这么多兄弟姐们，是否有悖论理；那个人命运在人类科技进步之时做的牺牲是否值得？人类真的是既渺小又伟大，生活的无奈又精彩。一切际遇都是成为每个自我的必经之路，先天铺好了曲，后天还是得填词……

The title "Three Identical Strangers" seems strange and full of mystery. On the one hand, there is a conflict between the words "identical" and "Strangers". On the other hand, it piqued my curiosity, so I wanted to find out what happened with these three people.

This documentary begins with a dramatic coincidence. After a series of weird events, Bobby Shafran, 19, met his brother Eddy Galland, whom had never known before, on his first day at Sullivan County Community College in New York. Both Shafran and Galland were adopted, born on the same day, and even looked exactly the same. Those clues confirmed that they are identical brothers without doubt.

三胞胎

However, the story didn't come to an end. Galland answered a call after the local newspaper published their reunion after 19 years’ separation. The person on the other end of the call was named David Kellman. He surprisingly asserted that he might be the third…Twin strangers came to be the Triplets.

Shafran, Galland, and Kellman's story thus far became popular. They were interviewed on several TV shows, and people were not only shocked by the reunited story, but also by their same tastes and mannerisms even though they hadn't known each other when they were growing up.

The triplets played roles in Madonna's Movie Desperately Seeking Susan.

神秘约会 (1985)

7.1

1985 / 美国 / 剧情 喜剧 爱情 / 苏珊·塞德尔曼 / 罗姗娜·阿奎特 麦当娜

The triplets started their family-run restaurant in New York. And all of them married their true love. Nevertheless, this delight was only the calm before the storm. Galland killed himself in 1995 because of depression. Then the movie raises strange questions:

Where were their biological parents?

Why were the triplets were separated at birth?

The movie leads us to an unexpected answer – everything the triplets experienced was for a long-term psychological study. Louise Wise Service, the Jewish adoption agency that handled the triplet adoption case in the 1950s, secretly worked for a group of psychology researchers who were lead by Dr. Neubauer. The agency used to separate many twins and triplets that needed to be adopted. Shafran, Galland and Kellman were placed separately in three different income families: one in the upper-class, one in the middle-class and the other in the working-class family. The triplets all remember a group of researchers who regularly observed and recorded them when they were very young.

At first, the movie suspected that psychologists studied the genetic problems of mental illness, because some of the adopted kids and their biological parents suffered from depression, and some even committed suicide just like Galland. Nonetheless, the real purpose of this study that separated at least 50 twins and triplets was to examine the debate of Nature Versus Nurture.

This documentary has left a very deep impression on me. Not only does it tell an incredibly real story, but the storytelling structure of this movie design is also very tricky and fascinating: Audiences cannot easily guess the plot of the story. The first hour was bright. Galland, Shafran and Kellmen reunited and became famous. Thus when the film first asked why the triplets were separated after birth, I didn't think this would cause a big problem. But as the story progressed, especially when Shafran and Kellmen recalled the death of Galland, I began to question whether this separation was ethical. What’s more, this movie eventually inspired me to think: Although the triplets had lots of similarities, they are unique and independent individuals, and their destiny should not be artificially intervened.

小罗伯特实验

When we study the history of scientific development, we always admire the achievements of predecessors and ignore the inappropriate methods and sacrifices for those results. For example, John B. Watson’s “Little Albert” Experiment, Monster Study conducted by Wendell Johnson, The Aversion Project led by Dr. Aubrey Levin. All the experiments are unethical and had terrible impact on those participants’ minds. These tragedies stem from scientists’ neglect and ignorance. People always identify the problem after they found the seriousness.

Luckily, in 1953, APA (American Psychological Association) first published the Ethics Codes. After nine versions revised, psychologists use this CODE today to guide experimenting when dealing with ethical dilemmas.

飞越疯人院剧照

Despite the Ethics Code, evil is still alive. In addition to research psychology, in 2009, there is a Chinese “clinical psychiatrist” named Yongxin Yang implements electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the treatment of adolescent internet addiction. Nearly 6000 teenagers in China claimed they received terrible treatment and Yang deceived them to have psychotropic drugs. Recently in 2016, the hospital was still in operation. a person posted his experience at Yang’s Hospital on the Internet. He mentioned that the patient was forced to obey the doctors, and the “low-frequency pulse therapy” was painful than the ECT. The most ridiculous thing is that parents actively sent their children to Yang’s hospital and paid nearly $805 a month for the therapy. I can't imagine how those teenagers experienced panic and pain while they were being treated.

In the theater where I watched Three Identical Strangers, 3 out of 4 audiences were seniors. I guess most audiences probably already know the story before watching this documentary. Maybe some of them used to be the participants of the similarity study just like the triplets on the screen.

Ultimately, Justice is sometimes late, but never absent.

本篇首发个人blog：//movifann.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/three-identical-strangers/#more-86

试想一下!

今天是开学第一天，你开开心心地来到一所新学校报到。

你发现，学校里那些你生平第一次见面的同学都非常热情地与你打招呼。

你很奇怪这是为什么，但是你马上用自己“长得足够帅”说服了自己，觉得这一切都是合情合理的。

但细心的你又发现，每个人明明是在与你打招呼，他们却是用别人的名字在称呼你。

你确定你不认识他们，但他们却表现得人人都与你很熟。

直到有人还是看出来了异样，大声寻问：“你是谁？”

“我是XXX，今天第一天来学校报到。”你回答到。

“你的生日是不是19XX年X月XX日？”那人继续问到。

“天哪，你怎么知道我生日是19XX年X月XX日，我又不认识你！”你无比吃惊。

“我是XX最好的朋友，他和你长得一模一样，就连你们的生日都是一样的！你不相信我的话，我可以带你去他家找他。”

你半信半疑地来到了他朋友家，门开了，你发现开门的那个人真的就是你！

再试想一下！

就是平平常常的一天。

你早上正常的起床、刷牙、吃早饭。

你吃早饭的时候会有看报纸读新闻的习惯，这时一条新闻的标题吸引了你的注意。

“震惊！一新生在入学报到时居然找到了自己19年从未谋面的孪生兄弟！”

你津津有味地阅读着这条新闻的内容，直到你发现新闻中的这对孪生兄弟的生日居然跟你是一样的！

你没有在意，觉得这只是个巧合，直到你将报纸翻页看到了这则新闻的配图......

图片中的那对孪生兄弟，与你长相一模一样......

看到这里，大家肯定会认为我讲的是哪个科幻片或者是恐怖片的电影情节，而我要告诉大家的是，我上面所说的这些情节，是真人真事！

这件真人真事最近被拍成了一部纪录片电影，片名叫《孪生陌生人》。

电影首映是在今年北美的圣丹斯电影节，电影节上就获得了不错的口碑，最后拿到了特别陪审团奖。

国内国外口碑都还不错，烂番茄新鲜度95%，豆瓣7.9分，IMDB评分7.8分。

纪录片通过采访当事人口述以及穿插模拟还原现场拍摄的方式将整个故事展现出来，拍摄手法虽然称不上高级，但是非常具有代入感，能够让你很快地沉浸在这个纪录片所讲述的事件中。

鲍比（Bobby）是一个被领养的孩子，今年19岁，在大学开学的第一天发生了我上面所说的那件事：他遇见了自己19年来从未谋面的孪生兄弟艾迪（Eddy）。

原来艾迪也是被领养的孩子，他比鲍比早一年来到这个大学，所以学校里的学生都已经认识他了。

鲍比与艾迪相认的事情太神奇了，很快他们的事情就被登上了报纸，报纸上还印着他们俩的照片。

大卫（David）很快也看到了这份报纸，让他无比吃惊的是报纸上的两人与自己居然一模一样。

大卫也是被领养的孩子，与鲍比和艾迪同年同月同日生。大卫很快通过报社联系到了鲍比与艾迪，原来他们三人真的是孪生三胞胎！

三人来自于同一家领养机构，领养机构在他们出生的那天将他们三人分别送给了三个不同的家庭领养。

三人虽然19年以来素未谋面，但见面后却无比的亲切。

他们不仅有着同样的面容与身材，还有着同样的性格，同样的喜好，同样的肢体习惯等等。

即使成长的环境与家庭各不一样，但毕竟血浓于水，有些东西在出生的时候就早已注定。

三人相似到什么程度呢？举个例子，一次艾迪患上了阑尾炎，可他没有医保，就直接用了鲍比的医保去医院做了手术，反正也没有医生能够看出来......

很快，三个人的故事就在美国出了名，源源不断的电视台采访让他们那会儿几乎变得家喻户晓，他们甚至还出演了麦当娜的新电影《神秘约会》。

但是慢慢的，他们也开始产生了怀疑：为什么三人的父母在收养他们三人的时候领养机构没有告知是孪生三胞胎？

领养机构路易斯·怀斯服务公司给出的解释是因为一般的家庭很难接受抚养三胞胎，所以为了领养家庭的利益他们才把三胞胎分开给三个家庭领养。

这样的解释很难服众，因为他们的抚养家长如果知道孩子是三胞胎，他们一定会抚养全部三个孩子的。

这些谜题的答案原来藏在了一篇并不起眼的科学文章中，这篇科学文章引用一项秘密研究，这项研究中就有同卵的兄弟姐妹被分开了。

原来为了这项科学实验，有人故意将刚刚出生的同卵婴儿给分离开了，而这些被用来研究的婴儿全部来自于同一家领养机构！这家领养机构就是将三胞胎给分开的路易斯·怀斯服务公司。

路易斯·怀斯服务公司甚至在挑选领养家庭的时候，刻意的将大卫、鲍比与艾迪分别送给了一个蓝领家庭、一个中产家庭以及一个比较富裕的家庭，目的就是为了观察他们在不同的家庭环境下成长后所表现的差异性。

这也解释了，为什么三人小时候都会有研究人员去他们家里对他们做各种跟踪测试，如智商测试、个性测试、眼手协调测试等等。

研究机构这样的行为让同卵婴儿们与研究实验室的小白鼠又有何区别呢？

然而，被强制分开研究的同卵婴儿其实并不只有他们三胞胎兄弟这一个案例。

宝拉（Paula）与爱丽丝（Elyse）比三胞胎兄弟更晚相认，她们同样是因为“科学目的”而在出生的时候被强制分开了。

她们还将自己的这段经历写成了畅销书《最熟悉的陌生人》。

所有相关的研究资料都被封存在耶鲁大学图书馆，数据包括文字，图表，音频，影像等等，总共装满了66个盒子。

在48年后的2066年以前没有人能打开这些盒子，无论是三胞胎兄弟们，还是记者或是纪录片的拍摄者，他们都没有阅读权限并且也找不到能够授权的人。

没有人能看到这些研究，所以没有人知道研究机构以这种方式分离了多少人，或许还有大量的双胞胎、三胞胎们不知道他们自己是双胞胎或是三胞胎，或许他们一辈子都不可能知道。

我想如果我有同卵的兄弟姐妹，我当然是想要去认识他们，因为这样我的生命才是完整的。

所以如果你有一天走在路上，突然回头看到一个与你长相一模一样的人，不要惊讶，因为你永远不知道这个世界上会不会存在第二个“你”！

首发于暴走看啥片儿微信公众号，未经授权，请勿转载

作者：吃麦子的马

We would prefer that we have some influence over our lives. Wouldn't you rather know that, that you have some control over this? and so finding out，never mind, doesn't matter what you do.so I think it's upsetting for people to see how little control they have.we don't like that. we fight that.

Genes and the environment are close competitors. You could say that we drift in the direction that our genes tell us to go, but it doesn't mean we are distined to be one person or another.

不可否认，这项实验确实是一项无法复制的monumental study。虽然是外围，但老太太在片子里的话都很点睛，也相对客观冷静（又美又优雅是她了）。很想知道实验结论，不相信实验结论能定义什么，单纯好奇。无论实验与否，自己的人生都只有一次，如何度过，每个人都有选择权。

很有电影感，纪录片和电影相结合，里面的情节引人入胜。 不过还是想说下看完后的感受。 最重要的一点，我也很想看2066年后的研究结果，想看看他们究竟研究的是什么，不过2066年我估计不在了。 对于人来说，是先天重要，还是后天的培养环境呢？这是我们一直在讨论的问题。还记得去年发生“母亲欲割肝救子，结果发现孩子不是亲生的”这个新闻，闹的沸沸扬扬的，似乎这两个抱错的小孩家庭成长背景也相互调换了，一个中产，一个家庭情况稍微没那么好。 看网友评论说，有个小孩狼心狗肺啥的，是遗传劣质的基因。 这，可以这么说吗？我不认为，很多事情是由各方的综合因素所形成的，而不是单一的。 我本来觉得是后天影响比较大，可是现在回想所看到的，所经历的，相互结合吧。 还有最近看《如父如子》，也是孩子被抱错，里面发生的事，但这是小说。

话说还是很想看到研究结果，想看看他们为啥隐瞒，想看看到底研究出个啥玩意。影片中，他们都有提到过，有个精神不大好的生母，而采访的那两组双胞胎，都曾或多或少地患过精神疾病。虽然里面有个研究员说他们研究的不是这个，但这样本是不是也太巧合了？

还有家庭因素，后天影响，好像确实是决定他们三胞胎后面的走向。但，这也是只是影片所呈现给我们看到的。

科学和伦理道德，这两样，真的很难呐