孪生陌生人

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……

《孪生陌生人》是一部令人细思极恐的纪录片——故事都不敢这么编，19岁的三个男生意外地找到彼此，竟然是同卵三胞胎！上报纸、上电视秀，一切是那么的激动又开心，直到“然而”。

然而，他们是在1961年六个月大的时候被“设计”进入了一个秘密的科学研究项目的。一个犹太儿童机构将N对孪生儿们送到不同的收养家庭，比如收养三胞胎兄弟的分别是蓝领、中产、富裕家庭，却对每个家庭隐瞒了真相。科学家以关注孩子成长为由，定期进行单个的访问、拍摄、测试。用于研究，才是孪生儿被迫骨肉分离的原因。

人可以被玩弄吗？在《楚门的世界》里，“人”被用于娱乐秀，至少是纯属虚构的。而这一次，是活生生的不知数目的孪生儿被拆散（研究项目资料保密封存至2066年），且这一次是以科学研究为目的。大概有人会说，研究怎么是玩弄呢？如果利用一小群人，结果真的能造福于大多数人呢？

退一步说，如果这个项目预先告之了收养家庭即养父母总可以了吧？拜托，实验的对象还有那些从婴儿开始长大的孩子，他（她）知情同意了吗？

这个研究项目是因为三兄弟的曝光，在1982年被意外终止的，而项目研究经费的来源是“私人基金会和华盛顿”。权力的底线在哪里？作为每一个个体的人即使再渺小，却不是“实验小白鼠”，那是基于人的自由意志不可侵犯，无论以任何理由。否则与纳粹何易？

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

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).

一开始以为是巧合，三兄弟多年后重聚的喜剧，可是到后来，越来越不一样，一层一层的剥开，发现三兄弟的一切都是被设计好的。

像小白鼠一样，一举一动被人操控着，而且自己都不知道被操控。非常不可思议，些许反伦理的行为，在上世纪九十年代的心理学狂潮中被人们认为是正常的。实验进行了很多年，等到三兄弟发现真相的时候，三兄弟之中的一个——艾迪，已经自杀了。

实验将患有精神疾病的父母所生的双胞胎或者三胞胎分别寄养在不同的家庭，让他们接受不同的教育成长环境，当然，他们都是携带精神疾病基因的人，结果证明，后天成长环境对一个人的影响是比先天基因大的多的。

怎么出来的这个结果呢？艾迪的自杀证明的。

三兄弟中，只有艾迪进入了一个跟自身性格完全不同的家庭环境，继父是严谨的管理者，艾迪是天生的浪漫主义者，两个完全不同的人，在继父家里，所有的一切都不那么如意，所以艾迪成长的环境是压抑的，他也有一个失常的青春期，在医院度过的青春期，精神科。

知道艾迪自杀身亡，继父都不知道艾迪为什么自杀，他一直以为自己没有教给他足够的知识，没有教给他如何处理生活中的困难，但是，显而易见，艾迪的自杀跟他的教育方式有关系。

可是，这并不能责怪艾迪的继父，他以自己认为的最好的教育给了艾迪，只能说，这个实验本身就是一个错误。

影片中也说了，知道参与实验的所有人都去世以后才会公布实验结果，但是看完电影，大家都知道了结果。

后天的良好培养胜过基因。

《震惊美国的三胞胎事件，当普通人遇上精神实验》

前一段的基因编辑婴儿事件，让我怀疑很多事情都有阴谋论。

为了更好的改变人的生存和健康，在出生前编辑好预防某些疾病的基因，听起来，人类操纵人的生命。伦理和道德被踩在脚下。

当这样的事情无法被控制，感觉太多控制在身边。而且有你无法预知的力量和势力，人类终于要掌握“进化之手”了？细思极恐。

最近看到一部纪录片《孪生陌生人》。

烂番茄新鲜读高达96%，获得第90届美国国家评论协会奖五佳纪录片。

影片由两部分组成，当事人的回忆和事件的场景交叉进行。

简略叙述一下剧情：鲍比，19岁。刚到学校却被认作另一个人，艾迪。所有人都亲密地欢迎他回来，把他当作了艾迪！

这让他不禁迷惑：WTF，谁是艾迪?后来两兄弟竟然是否双胞胎，大卫发现h报纸f报道后，看到两个人的照片，猜想他们是三兄弟。

事实和他猜测的一致，他们是三胞胎。

相认后，他们本应幸福的在一起生活，确实幸福过，开一家“三胞胎”餐馆，赚了不少钱。

事情却慢慢变遭了。

他们发现自己是被分离开抚养，而各自的父母从不知情。

十九年前，艾迪、鲍比和大卫同时被露易丝·怀斯领养机构领养。

而三人被不同的家庭领养，直到19年后，他们偶然相认，童话般的故事上演了，而背后的隐瞒让这三个家庭都异常愤怒。 三个家庭的父母找到领养机构，想知道答案，哪怕打官司。 “为什么？为什么没人告诉他们？他们为什么这么做？”

这项实验一直被隐藏，谁在进行这项实验，目的何在？意义是什么？

最令人费解的是，双胞胎研究花费大量人力和物力，没有任何成果公布。

娜塔莎·乔斯弗维茨曾经是彼得·鲍尔曼的助理研究，说他非常渴望在儿童生活领域有一番作为，想研究愿意放弃自己孩子的父母，而孩子恰恰是双胞胎，以一劳永逸地回答“先天还是后天”的悖论。

把孩子分开，把人当作试验品，心理学变成主流，这样的研究是一个绝好的机会。

因为人们不喜欢毫无意识的行动，期望人的行为——每个个体有自由意志。

我们希望对生活产生影响，有控制力。而不是遗传祖辈的行为，我们厌恶自身的作为微乎其微，到头来都是徒劳。

人们总是渴望发现什么——人能改变事情。

当谈及这项实验的时候，彼得·鲍尔曼讳莫如深，一直规避谈及具体情况，像是里面有太多阴谋。

至少有四对以上的双胞胎被分离，而且他们或许一辈子都不会知道。

看完全片，导演并不仅是要讨论先天养成与后天培养，哪个对人的影响较大，而是要通过这么离奇而隐秘的故事，通过揭秘实验，应当怎么看待生命。

虽然片中对于背后阴谋的揭露太过浅显，对于先天后天的争议没有确切答案，把目光放在双胞胎生活的影响上。

导演用的手法，像在看悬疑片，冷静客观，抽丝剥茧，一步一步接近真相，让我看得欲罢不能，这是今年最好看的纪录片之一。

从不同角度揭示，用老照片、老资料、老报纸等多样的形式吸引住了想要答案的观众。配乐也是加分项，前半部的动感，后半部悲情。

双胞胎精神实验违反人性吗？一定是。

家庭的环境被设计，了解育儿时间以及如何成长，详细记录过程，结果却从未发表。

这是活生生的例子，安排当事人和家长对研究一无所知，孩子和家长都是实验对象，都是受害者。

被无端当作小白鼠，这里面的伤害无从估计。

艾迪后来与兄弟们分开，与父亲的关系不好，而在某一天，艾迪自杀了，成了大家不能解的谜题。艾迪患上狂躁抑郁症，原本可以迷人，突然的暴露心中黑暗的一面。基因里面有什么我们不知道的？

这项研究中出现很多失常的少年，有失常的青春期，和一些精神问题，也是令人质疑的。

大卫试图寻找这些研究记录，访问权限被关闭。

研究者鲍尔曼闪烁其词，他在保护什么？研究基金来自私人家庭基金和华盛顿！无人关心研究产生的影响。

许多记者们想要获得着项研究的资料，得到的回答是不予授权！

而这项研究的结果一直存于耶鲁大学的档案馆。

研究助理劳伦斯·伯尔曼，负责记录研究过程，对此研究中有趣的地方，比如不能泄露身份信息，表现得态度冷漠，毫不愧疚，从未觉得有责任，劳伦斯自己认为是错误的，这是种道德妥协，他的表态显得很苍白，让人讨厌。

在这样一个精彩的故事里，三胞胎的真实经历，一项【人被如何扶养】的实验，要找到抚养过程的变量，代价是挑战家庭成员的生活全部。

精神学家似乎要从这样的挑战中获得“更高的启示”。背后的伦理、道德底线，甚至是意志都被忽略，实验在寻求先天的答案，而过程的伤害又如何估量？后天的努力难道不应该肯定吗？

李玫瑾老师认为个人对自我管理是纵向管理，能够约束自己的是自己的未来。

精神健康的数据长时间要被埋葬在耶鲁大学，很多人对这样研究的数据好奇，而公开的时间要到2066年。令人沮丧。

必须要说的是有关人类实验，不论以何种手段达到任何目的，都要慎重，而且必须反思。

他们的故事喜中带忧，犹太人和华盛顿等势力强有力的缄默，仿佛一面镜子，一面是鲜活的生命，一面是不可告人的目的。

保存档案的时间久远，或许不会有太多人注意，而本片的恐怖现实都像是一个警示寓言：

人类的经历，都是在戴着镣铐跳舞。

可以把这部片理解为人被当作小白鼠的展现，你永远不知道阴谋的深浅。

《海豚湾》里被残忍杀害的海豚，《南京》被埋葬的二十万平民。无不都是人类行为的疯狂后果。

我们渴望看到好的纪录片，而凝视别人正是让我们能更好的关注自己。

生而为人，每个人顺着基因我们成长为自己，但是当你被安排成另一个人。多么悲哀。

“我们是如何成为我们的？”

如果不是“被实验”，三兄弟们的生活本应多么幸福。

导演蒂姆·瓦德尔温和地批判着阴谋的另一方。《孪生陌生人》应该被更多人看到，他们的名字是：大卫·凯尔曼，艾迪·嘉兰、罗伯特·沙弗兰、宝拉和爱丽丝……，……，或许大多数我们不必担心这样的事情发生在自己身上，不相信这样的阴谋存在。而他们被剥夺的不仅是神奇、真实、残酷的生活，更是作为人应有的知情权生存的机会。

面对践踏而愤怒，因为起码的尊严在被侵犯。

我们最缺这样的纪录片，因为有这样的叩问，让我们审视生活中的不幸。

好看的纪录片，正是把生活的各个面恒久展现。

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。