Three Identical Strangers

Some years ago, I taught psychology and we invariably did some lectures on ethics in psychological research. We talked about some of the more famous unethical studies, such as the famous Zimbardo prison study or Milgram's study on obedience. However, at the time, "Three Identical Strangers" and the revelations in the film were not available...and it's a shame as it would have been a great study to dissect. With my background, it's not surprising that I was excited to see the film once I learned what it was about and how the ethics of the study were completely lacking. And, so many, many things about the study were completely unethical...but you'll have to learn more about that when you see the documentary. The story of "Three Identical Strangers" begins when a young 19 year-old arrives at college...only to have many people there recognize him! At first, he thought it was just a very friendly school...but soon it became obvious that the young man had a twin. After all, they were born on the same day, were adopted through the same adoption agency and looked like twins. Little did they realize that they were not a set of twins but two of the three out of a set of triplets. And, when their story made the newspapers, soon they learned there was a third!! Eventually, it turns out the same adoption agency separated several sets of twins and triplets. Why? To make them part of a secret psychological study on genetics. What?? Yes...the families never knew their babies had two other identicals...nor that this was a sick study on genetics and environment!! How bad did it go from here? REALLY, really bad....but I don't want to ruin the film....see for yourself. So is the film any good? Yes, it's extremely well made, never dull and is well worth seeing. My only quibble has nothing to do with the film itself. My problem was that I saw it when it first aired on CNN...and CNN did a terrible job in showing it. The film was punctated with tons of commercials...so much that it seemed like a third of the time I was watching, I was watching commercials. So, try to find it elsewhere...such as through Netflix where they don't ruin the film with so many ads.

Three Identical Strangers_720p(480P)

source: Three Identical Strangers

This movie was great. The first half was light-hearted and funny, and made you think the director was leaning a certain way as to its message. The second half took a totally different direction and became dark, sad and somewhat ambiguous. It had me thinking for days, which is a sign of a great movie. My friend literally broke down in the car crying afterwards. It's a journey into the bond between twins, mental health issues and scientific ethical boundaries.

Stories about Twins (and other pairs of siblings) separated at birth aren't all that uncommon - but, triplets? Director Tim Wardle takes that rare occurrence and runs with it in the breathless and highly entertaining first section of his Documentary THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS. Wardle also cleverly edits his footage (including the interviews) in order to preserve as many surprises about the secrets and lies to come later in the movie. Some might argue that Wardle's technique is a bit of cheat, but, for those who enter without knowing the full story it enhances the viewing, even if it does cause some issues later on. The story is told quite sequentially, and, again, that is in service of providing more drama as the Doc unfolds. Because the events go back to the 60s, many of the participants aren't around any longer to speak for themselves. Still, Wardle and his team managed to assemble a good cross-section of survivors to go on the record. Because the story was such a cause celebre in the early 80s (and in the NYC area to boot) we are also able to see a decent amount of historical footage of the triplets and their rise to fame including trips to the Today show, Donahue and a brief cameo in Susan Seidelman's DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN (supposedly at the behest of star Madonna). Some fairly minor dramatic re-enactments are also employed, and aren't distracting (Wardle also maintains the proper aspect ratio in much of the vintage footage - to his credit). As the true tale turns darker, a few issues with the filmmaking arrive. I won't delve into spoilers (I avoided them myself in order for the Doc to have maximum impact), but, the old Nurture vs. Nature debate becomes a key point of contention - as it does with all of these 'separated at birth' cases. Because of the way Wardle structures his editing, we mostly get the 'Nature' perspective until very late in the process. Further, a major cache of evidence is dropped in at the very last moment, and isn't sufficiently analyzed. It's understood that after five years in the making, Wardle, Raw, Neon and other production entities wanted to get their movie done and released, but one can't help but feel the editing was wrapped up in order to get a prized Sundance Film Festival spot. Wardle also includes a couple of curious montages repeating what we've seen earlier as if he had an eye on TV showings (CNN is set to show it). But, these problems pale compared to Wardle's casting a light on some highly unethical behavior that effected the triplets' lives. These relatively minor issues aside, THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS again shows why there is a bit of Documentary boom going on. In a cinema dominated by Superhero and Animated flicks, there is a yearning among some adults for movies of substance and reality. STRANGERS is a true emotional roller-coaster.

On July 12, 1961 in Glen Oaks, New York: Robert Shafran, Eddie Galland, and Robert Kellman were born as identical triplets to a single mother and later adopted in different families. This documentary chronicles their story which includes their eventual reunion and beyond. This is one of those documentaries which reinforces the belief that truth is stranger than fiction. It can also join superior documentaries like "Bus 174" (2002 - Brazil) and "Tower" (2016 - USA) as non-fiction films that end up as mysterious thrillers for audiences who are unaware of the events exposed in each film. An odd twist about "Strangers" though, is that some information remains incomplete by the end - this is no fault by any means of the filmmakers who do a superb job. Without giving anything away, there is a perverse reason that so much information is denied to the viewer and to the many involved in this bizarre story. Some movies finish with happy endings. This one starts with a happy beginning. There is much joy in the reunion and the enormous ripple effect this causes. Once the thrill starts to settle down, the young men naturally want to learn more about their birth and adoption circumstances. What they learn turns the film into a sinister mystery. Once all the talking heads are introduced within the first twenty minutes or so, a keen observer will notice that another mystery is yet to unfold as the film chronologically reveals the lives of the triplets. Once the mystery is revealed, the emotional impact is stunning. As if this film isn't rich enough, it even digs into issues of class. Each boy grew up in different circumstances from each other. This further fuels the debate of nature vs nurture. One thing though is not debatable: "Three Identical Strangers" is one of the most fascinating documentaries ever. Not since the Dionne quintuplets were born in 1934 has there been such a fascinating story of identical siblings from a multiple birth. - dbamateurcritic

A lot of the movie, I think the majority of it, actually, is spent on the early stages of the triplets meeting each other rather than on the question of nature vs. nurture. And on the question of nature vs. nurture, the movie makes a lot of implications that are not fully fleshed out and it's not clear whether the moviemakers themselves are certain/confident of what they are implicating. It was not the movie I was expecting and wanted to see, which was an in-depth exploration of the question of nature vs. nurture, delving into the actual similarities/differences of the triplets, their upbringings, how they are alike/different in adulthood, etc. But instead, we just see them seated in front of the camera and telling a story, rather than seeing an investigation into their lives. For example, pertaining to the nature vs. nurture question, the movie largely implicates that the reason Eddy committed suicide was because he had a disciplinarian father figure who he was not close to, unlike the other two twins who had more involved fathers. But Eddy's father himself appears in the documentary, and he seems so gentle and smiling and speaks with affection about his late son... They never show examples of Eddy's father's disciplinarian style except Eddy's mother saying "oh, Eddy wasn't close to his father." That's all we get, and that's pretty much all there is to the nurture side of the question that the movie explores.

This is being praised as a documentary about the evils of twin studies. It positions itself as something which highlights the unethical behaviours of science while at the same time playing fast and loose with the facts. There are a number of very serious problems with this documentary. While it is at times entertaining it is not informative of its subjects. Its main concern is to tug at the heart strings as opposed to get the truth. The main premise of the narrative is that a group of unethical psychiatrists devised an experiment to deprive three brothers of their siblings. But the documentary offers no evidence this was the case. The fact is we have no proof that the psychiatrists were behind the decision to split up the brothers, there is evidence that the agency were behind this decision. The researchers saw this as an opportunity to investigate familial influence on development. However the narrative plays along with the idea it was the so called unethical researchers. The second big issue is this notion of a deliberate cover up by the researchers. The data were being held by a university and the data was open to other researchers on request. No data were destroyed or hidden it was all safe within a university. As for the fact the studies werent published, its not the authors who publish the research, this is done via journals. There was actually no evidence that this study actually got to the stage of data analysis. Never mind completion. However one of the biggest problems with this documentary was the way they used the siblings which didnt feel ethical itself. The brothers were given hope that hidden within the data which was collected about them were some answers as to why the study was done etc. This could have been answered by any researcher involved in twin studies but it was obvious that the brothers were looking for answers where there were none that would satisfy them. The scary part of this documentary was the way it exploited the families involved, particularly the father of the deceased brother. They basically blamed this man for being a strict disciplinarian for the death of his own son. Which was a disgraceful conclusion to come to without any supportive evidence and is dare I say it, unethical. The film makers then use this one incident to then conclude that nurture is more important than nature. Which is a black or white position that hasnt been argued seriously for many years. The irony of course being that the documentary makers have fallen into the very trap they accuse the psychiatrists of, which is deciding on whether nature or nurture is more important. But not based on scientific methods, but based on a documentary. Simply put, this is one of those documentaries which will have an initial buzz about it but will lose its sheen once the obvious holes have been picked in its approach. This has a clear agenda. The research assistant on the study made a simple point, that the ethical issue was how to balance the need to disclose to someone they had a twin against the potential damage this may cause. That may be the reason the studies never saw the light of day but this wasn't to be a balanced documentary. You may find it initially fun if you dont care about truth however anyone with an understanding of research will see the obvious omissions made in order to tell a story.

As a mother of twins this story was heartbreaking for me to watch. I feel that three babies were cheated out of developing that special bond that so many siblings have. They were deprived of interacting as babies, toddlers, school aged children who most likely would have had a very different life experience. I could feel their pain even though they smiled for the cameras. They were never given the chance just to be a family together. They were basically lab rats used for a scientific study that will not be published until they are all dead. This should never have been allowed and is disgusts me that these three boys were kept apart. The pain and anguish they have suffered since discovering each other is unconscionable. I wish the surviving brothers peace and comfort for their remaining lives.

Enthraling, capitvating. I drove over an hour to see this movie, yet did not expect the twists and turns. These boys grab your heart and dont let go. I would read the book if they wrote one, which would be great because the movie does leave you wanting to know more.