But this did not "prove" anything, nor did it "expose" the evil of human nature. People who think this is "evil" first have a false understanding that human nature is inherently good, or that cruelty is a "dirty" thing that should not exist. Don't underestimate human beings, if there is only "goodwill" and no bloodthirsty spirit, human beings will not survive the millions of years before agriculture begins.
In the third place, the black man who should be the most interesting turns bad in an instant, and the audience sees the end and loses patience. The events that have occurred since then have only been escalated in degree, without substantial changes and turning points, so they are only long repetitions.
Several assumptions made by the adaptation are also very unreasonable. The highest purpose of the subjects is to get paid, and "violence" and "someone escape" will cause serious consequences of "no one gets paid". Under this premise, peaceful cooperation is the best win-win strategy, which does not require complicated reasoning, but is very intuitive. However, I didn't see a single person mention it, and the jailer didn't seem to be really worried while enjoying it.
The subjects were all socially marginalized people who were willing to take risks for money, and were not mentally "healthy". The blond boy who provoked violence first obviously had a sadistic tendency, and the black man who wanted the audience to feel a sense of amazement also started to look like he was about to burst out of depression. To judge whether a person is a "good person", or whether he has a tendency to "do kindness" to others, it is not whether he lives with his mother or whether he talks about "God" and "Supreme Goodness". Therefore, the effect achieved by the film is not "a group of normal, healthy people who enter a virtual sadomasochistic environment and actually become sadomasochistic and masochistic", but "a group of socially marginalized and Emotionally marginalized men, being placed in an unchecked and unregulated vacuum, are violent behaviors." If it wasn't for the experimental party to artificially divide them into two factions, the final effect would probably be a melee, or form a small group. Such a result "reveals" nothing, but is perfectly normal.
Including the original experiment that the film refers to is also debatable. What is "mental health"? A person who chooses an option like "won't hurt others" in the written test, after being created conditions that can hurt others without punishment, really hurts people, is it shocking? Does "mental health" mean "complete absence of evil"? Could it be that there is a real person who has absolutely no "evil" elements in him? Is "evil" something utterly superfluous, which rightfully has to be plucked out of the composition of mankind?
This kind of film with an essential proposition such as "human nature" as the theme, and the theme is clearly thrown out as a signboard is very difficult to shoot, and the depth of the script writer's thinking, as well as the understanding, understanding and analysis of the proposition are extremely demanding. involved. However, the advantages of this type of film are that it is easy to shoot pure, the form is novel and clear, the content is generally impactful and can go to a certain extreme, and it has a certain meaning and can attract a part of the audience.
View more about The Experiment reviews
