孪生陌生人

讲完三胞胎相认后，影片分两条线继续追踪整个故事：一条线接着开头讲三胞胎后来的生活，用当年的电视片段、家庭录影告诉观众，三胞胎上了很多节目，变得小有名气，各自成家，一同立业——开了个名为“三胞胎”的餐厅。

另一条线追寻三胞胎身世背后的各种疑点。其中重头戏在于，三胞胎的分开抚养是研究者为了学术观察而人为地与收养机构合作安排的（出镜的两位兄弟提到从小就定期有人来给自己做测试、问问题、录影）。

以下严重剧透哦~

三位专业人士先后出场，梳理一下他们各自给出的信息：

1， 调查记者，他了解到精神分析学教授纽鲍尔曾经搞过一项研究：将同卵双/多胞胎在出生时安排给不同的家庭抚养，研究这些孩童的成长。

2， 纽鲍尔当年的女研究助理（？），她提到纽鲍尔教授的研究思路是为了通过观察，得出nature or nurture的确切答案。老人意味深长地表示，nature的力量极强，孩子们的相似性（尽管成长在不同家庭）远超想象。这意味着无论你free will多么强大，遗传的东西你还是无法改变。

这时候片中的现实线和疑点线交会：三兄弟因为生意问题嫌隙渐生，波比退出，艾迪精神病发后自杀。影片又提到三兄弟和他们的生母都曾受精神问题困扰，于是猜测该研究是否为了探讨精神病是否具有遗传性？然后回到疑点线。

3， 实际参与了该研究的助手，他否定上述猜测，表示研究目的就是观察育儿实践对孩子的影响。然后来了个重磅爆料：三胞胎各自都有姐姐，也都是收养的。研究者提前在各家安置领养的姐姐→借此了解到三对养父母不同的育儿方式→再将三胞胎分别安置在三个家庭→等于研究者人为的为三兄弟各选了一对父母→以此来达到控制变量、研究因变量的目的。

看完实在是十分心寒。

今时今日看来，这项研究严重违反了学术道德规范。这也是影片中受访的人们的共识。对于三胞胎来说，他们和他们的养父母毫不知情地成为被试对象，像小白鼠一样被研究者观察着自己的人生。如果不是波比新生报到时的偶然发现，三胞胎或许终其一生都不会知道自己有另外两个孪生的兄弟。

更让人毛骨悚然的是，研究者在过程中毫不犹豫地扮演了上帝，为三胞胎选择各自的养父母，那么反过来，是不是可以要求研究者为养父母给各自的养子造成的伤害负责呢？比如影片最后提到艾迪与他养父的关系糟糕，并暗示这极有可能是造成艾迪自杀的重要原因。

艾迪人到中年自杀，观众难道不会问，研究组明知道艾迪养父极为严苛、对孩子特别冷漠，为啥偏偏要把艾迪安置到他家去当倒霉孩子呢? 研究组下这一盘大棋的时候根本就没想过要为以后负责。

长久以来当子女的总归有点委屈，我们又不能选择自己的父母和出身，投胎到什么样的家庭就认什么样的命吧。这部纪录片提供了全新的思考角度：有人替这三个孩子选择了不同的父母、不同的出身，间接决定了他们各自的命运。这和普通的收养情形不同，因为研究者预先已经知道每个家庭的育儿方式、家庭氛围，其实已经预先设计了孩子未来的成长环境。

在这样的情况下三兄弟难免觉得不公平。不要忘记大卫刚开始知道另外两位兄弟时，心里想的是，this SOB is probably driving a Benz! He’s got a doctor! 19岁的大卫觉得波比爸是医生，我爸是蓝领，不公平。人到中年的大卫才明白自己的爸宽厚可亲，比起波比爸的忙碌、艾迪爸的冷漠，自己的爸其实是最好的。可惜波比和艾迪根本没得选父亲的性格，他们难道就不会觉得不公平？

写到这里觉得有些沮丧，研究组的上帝之手无论怎么为三兄弟选择，都不可能让三人各自满意。而且他们还有了一个具象化的恨的对象——研究者们。而普通人抱怨自己的父母，却也深知无法改变，也就只剩下后天努力、学会释怀这条路可走了。

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).

观影场次：悉尼电影节2018 | State theater | 9:30am早场

一部有着探案悬疑剧叙事手法，基于社会深度报道取材、论证过程有着学术论文严谨度、再加上最后的立意高度到了哲学论辩的纪录片。三位离散了19年的双胞胎，在经历了一阵新闻娱乐真人秀狂欢之后，竟然发现了一个黑暗的学术阴谋。整个观影过程就像是拼拼图，导演不断给你新的一片。拿着新的信息，我们对整件事的动机和逻辑就有了完全不一样的解读。

感觉导演借着nature vs nurture的切入口，其实想要表达的还有很多。很欣赏导演以比较中立的态度呈现了许多观点。其实人类一直都是这样把。一直锲而不舍的在借用科学和科技，试图开启上帝视角。

影片结束之后，我心里一直留存一个问题：如果动机是为了人类社会的共同福祉，那么作为个体的命运和幸福是否可以被牺牲呢？

故事的开始总是美好的啊——三胞胎相认

Bob几十年前，刚上大学的第一天，迈入校园，居然被许多人热情打招呼，甚至有辣妹直接上来贴面热吻。他此时觉得——不对（这不是去幼儿园的车！）直到有人上来叫他Eddy，他才意识到，别人错把自己认成了一个和他长得完全一样的人。

然后他拨通了eddy的电话，发现他和eddy有着相同的生日。并且都是在同一家领养机构（Louise Wise Services）被现在的父母所收养的。是的，他们就是失散多年的双胞胎！在当时，这个事情上了报纸头条！然后，更狗血的是，一个叫做David的年轻人看到了这个新闻。他发现自己长得和这对双胞胎一模一样，然后生日也相同，也是在同一个机构被领养的！

三胞套重逢之后，一见如故，感情好到不行。因为他们的故事太狗血——1）三胞胎被三个不同家庭收养，2）而且三个家庭恰好代表了三种不同的社会阶级——富裕家庭，中产，以及蓝领工人阶级；3）三个人的家里竟然都有一个同样年龄的姐姐！

他们在当时俨然成了明星，去了很多真人秀脱口秀节目，甚至还客串了电影。他们开的三胞胎酒吧噱头堪比现在的网红店！

邪恶势力——Louise Wise Services 领养机构出场

在大众传媒都在狂欢消费三胞胎的故事，并且惊讶于他们19年没有一起成长，却还是有着惊人的默契度的时候。三家的养父母去找了Louise Wise Services 这个领养机构去要一个说法。为什么当年他们在领养小孩子的时候，这个机构不告诉他们，这是三胞胎。为什么要强行拆散他们！！！

咆哮的父母们失望离开，机构的头头们冷漠而不失礼貌的给了一个很敷衍的答案，因为他们觉得如果是三胞胎的话，可能很难被领养出去。

之后的一天，一个研究人类遗传领域的社会学者发现了一批档案。该册被封存的档案表明，上世纪60年代有一个在心理治疗领域颇有名的耶鲁教授，曾经进行过一个实验。即人为的把双胞胎弃婴分到不同家庭背景的环境。而该实验的合作机构，正是三胞胎当时被托送的领养机构。

三胞胎开始渐渐回忆起自己很小的时候，隔一段时间总会有一些研究人员来到家里，给自己做各种智力认知实验。他们对孩子的养父母声称是为了研究被收养的孩子的发展情况。

该实验的发起人，则是临床心理学界非常知名的一个美国教授——Dr Peter Neubauer。

Dr Peter Neubauer

是的，狂欢的人们啊，本教授让你们失望了！你们以为的巧合，根本都是人为操纵的实验设计哈哈哈哈啊！——（脑补：教授大笑着驾鹤西去，他老人家已经去世了。）

但这依然不是故事的全部，到底为什么做了实验，却不发表结果？

如果实验的结果真的如大众所猜想的，就是后天环境因素其实对于基因的影响很小（因为三胞胎即使被分离19年，在完全不同的环境长大，但他们的爱好，选配偶的眼光，以及很多习惯都还是一模一样。），那么为什么不发表结果？

当年参与实验的核心人员都不愿意接受采访。而该教授已经去世。线索到这里断了。

那个纪录片中一直都只以影像形式存在的Eddy

三胞胎中的Eddy因为狂躁抑郁症开枪自杀。然后有更多的当时被人为分离的双胞胎被媒体发现。

其中的大部分都有精神病史。在追溯上去，他们的亲生父母似乎都有精神病史。这所有的线索，指向了更让人不适的研究动机——精神病与遗传的关系。

但这依然是无法被确定的。当时发起实验的教授已经去世了，因为研究还可能涉及很多极其重要的政治人物，相关档案也被加密，直到50年后才能开启。

该实验背后，那些让人细思极恐的细节

片中对于当时参与研究的助教，以及被研究对象的采访，所呈现出的质疑全都细思极恐。

首先先来简要说一下三胞胎的家庭环境，有相同的精神病基因，为什么最后是Eddy自杀了，而Bob和David还是好好活着呢？很直观的一个答案就是——家庭教育方式的不同。

David的家庭，虽然只是蓝领家庭，但他的父亲非常开朗，无论David想要追逐的梦想和行为方式是什么，他都以David为骄傲，给予他最阳光的鼓励。而Bob所成长的富裕家庭，父母则更多采用引导探讨式的教育方式。

Eddy所成长的家庭，有着最不符合他自己原生性格的家教方式，他的父亲是传统的严父，不苟言笑，而Eddy则是一个很敏感，又很渴望自我表达的小孩子。

片子的最后，一个曾经参与过该研究一年的一个教授实名出镜接受了采访。

因为他很早就离开了该实验团队，所以他并不知道最后该实验得到的结论是什么。也不知道实验目的是否和精神病有关。

但从他的实验手记里可以看到的是，他在家访Eddy之后，写下了——“Eddy的父亲过分严苛传统，他的家庭教育模式和Eddy小朋友的天性是冲突的。这可能对该小朋友发展不利。”

但出于实验设计的原因，这些采访记录都只是作为研究分析的素材，所以是从来没有给eddy的父母亲看过的。实验人员也没有任何干预Eddy的父母亲的家庭教育模式的手段。因为这其实根本就是实验设计的一部分。

换言之，在最初选定他们这三个家庭来收养三胞胎的时候，研究人员其实已经事先观察过这三个家庭父母的教育方式了。这就是为什么三胞胎恰好有三个比他们大的也是被收养的姐姐。

这段采访被拿给David看，巨大的静默之后，他说出了一句也许我们大家都想说的话：“这世界上天生就有些人是与环境不fit的吧？所以他们就该死？”

最后的字幕说：“在这部影片上映之后，该机构向David 和 Bob解密了实验的具体结果和结论。”

但是，因为涉及的研究对象至少有50多对双胞胎，因为不想引起全民的恐慌，所以该档案依然不能向公众解密。相关机构暂时也没有主动去联系那些被作为研究对象的双胞胎的意向。导演问到当时参与过研究的老太太：“你不觉得应该至少公开这些研究资料给当时的被研究对象么？“

活到八九十岁的那个她说：”换个角度想。别告诉他们。就让他们这样按照原来的生活活下去，难道不好么？“

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

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

先天的 DNA，和后天的生活环境，在人的一生中究竟产生什么样的影响？这的确是一个关乎你我他的大问题。

美国某著名心理学家在某财团的资助下，将一些同卵孪生弃婴，分散安置到他暗中筛选出来的家庭中生活，并长年偷偷观察。十九年后，纪录片《孪生陌生人》（Three Identical Strangers，2018）说的这孪生三兄弟意外重逢，并成了全美明星，知情权等问题引发社会大众的非议，这实验就终止了。相关的研究资料，被封存在图书馆至 2066 年。

由于资料保密，这部纪录片能说到的，只是该事件的冰山一角。实验能否为前面那个大问题给出答案，暂时还不得而知。

由于这类让人从婴儿起就充当小白鼠的实验实在说不过去，人类若好奇心大发，还是先去翻翻存世的经典文献，看看是否已经写好了答案再说吧，最好先别搞人。

2018.10.16 http://william-ho.lofter.com/post/6c3aa_12b840224