What is even more ironic is that the same kind of "personal phone call" did not happen in half a case, but accepted more than 70 cases. In the most representative case that happened in a fast food restaurant, the real protagonist received compensation from McDonald's, with a total value of five million US dollars, plus more than one million US dollars in compensation. This case involves not only false alarms, but also sexual assault and rape. What makes us think the most is who should be held responsible for this, the young victim's boss? Is it McDonald's? Is it the one who made the call? Or the victim himself? Originally, it only took one more phone call to confirm this matter, but only one step was owed and the consequences were caused.
The case happened on April 9, 2004, and about four years later, there was also a real "fast food restaurant incident" in Hong Kong. Both of them also had elements of rape. Know how to say "no", youth is not an excuse for ignorance, no one should succumb to power, but also know how to protect themselves. There are so many absurd things. I remember there was a news that a junior high school student was manipulated by a friend to be an aid girl. Didn't we teach us to protect ourselves when we were young? Why do not know how to talk to others after being hurt, but instead they all become "obedient".
Undoubtedly, this movie is very suitable for people who like psychology and sociology to watch. When people lose their reason and critical thinking, they will ignore the cause and effect and do something, and power will also corrupt people. There are still people who have been deceived by telephone scams to this day. It reflects that criminals use people's sympathy and empathy to achieve their own interests in pursuit of justice.
Basically, "The Incident of the Fast Food Restaurant" can be regarded as a psychology textbook more than a movie. The play mainly reproduces some situations at that time, and it can also be regarded as a psychological experiment. . And we can use the "Prisoner Theory" as an explanation. First of all, many people will blame SANDRA because she is under the control of another person in charge. If she does not follow the rules, she may be accused of obstructing work. SANDRA is a good citizen, so she is only subject to power. The victim BECKY we are talking about here also has such concerns, and she believes in SANDRA, so she just wants to solve this matter quickly. SANDRA has gained recognition from praise to a certain extent, and she is quite enjoy it. And we can also see from the play that some people obey, and some people choose to refuse. This is the merit of the experiment, whether people will obey in the power, the person who refuses has their own courage, and the person who accepts it is thinking. This is quite interesting and difficult to explain, or it is desire, or the thirst for power, especially when people are in their positions, they may not be able to withdraw. In particular, SANDRA was the person in charge of the branch at the time. She hoped that everything would go smoothly and her reputation would be preserved. As for the "refrigerator problem" and "mystery shopper" in the play, it doesn't matter, it just brings out the busy scene in the store.
This film has shown tension from the very beginning, presenting a world where there is only obedience, and no "no" is said. In fact, the positioning of the film does not need to be attached to whether it has any plots and productions. The world itself is very absurd, so the film world pushes this absurdity and ignorance to the extreme, making this movie a topical work. In addition, what can be seen is the "big brother" complex, creating a layered dramatic effect between watching, peeping, and listening. "The Incident of the Fast Food Restaurant" reminds the audience of the Lucifer effect of "Experimental Cell". Good people and bad people can be formed in one thought. SANDRA's character has never thought of being a bad person, but she is a good citizen, and later In the real incident, DONNA SUMMERS (the manager of the incident), she mentioned in the interview that she just wanted to assist the police, and it was later learned that she also received compensation from the McDonald's company. Undoubtedly, she did not want to be the perpetrator, but when the subconscious and the current judgment surpassed the reality, it would bring harm to others.
When I have seen the reports of real events, I am not surprised by this film. In fact, the "Quick" film is just a reproduction. It is a waste of time to talk about any dramatic techniques. Of course, no matter what, we need to create a little suspense, but the most important thing is It is to restore the incident of the case, and the requirement for it is that it is enough to stop at the case. Those who have seen the film should recommend this film to those around them to watch, as an example.
Text/Dorothy
View more about Compliance reviews
