On the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered in April 1968, Jane Elliott's third graders from the small, all-white town of Riceville, Iowa, came to class confused and upset. They recently had made King their "Hero of the Month," and they couldn't understand why someone would kill him. So Elliott decided to teach her class a daring lesson in the meaning of discrimination. She wanted to show her pupils what discrimination feels like, and what it can do to people.
Elliott divided her class by eye color -- those with blue eyes and those with brown. On the first day, the blue-eyed children were told they were smarter, nicer, neater, and better than those with brown eyes. Throughout the day, Elliott praised them and allowed them privileges such as a taking a longer recess and being first in the lunch line. In contrast, the brown-eyed children had to wear collars around their necks and their behavior and performance were criticized and ridiculed by Elliott. On the second day, the roles were reversed and the blue-eyed children were made to feel inferior while the brown eyes were designated the dominant group.
What happened over the course of the unique two-day exercise astonished both students and teacher. On both days, children who were designated as inferior took on the look and behavior of genuinely inferior students, performing poorly on tests and other work. In contrast, the "superior" students -- students who had been sweet and tolerant before the exercise -- became mean-spirited and seemed to like discriminating against the "inferior" group.
"I watched what had been marvelous, cooperative, wonderful, thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating little third-graders in a space of fifteen minutes," says Elliott. She says she realized then that she had "created a microcosm of society in a third-grade classroom."
Elliott repeated the exercise with her new classes in the following year. The third time, in 1970, cameras were present. Fourteen years later, FRONTLINE's "A Class Divided" chronicled a mini-reunion of that 1970 third-grade class. As young adults, Elliott's former students watch themselves on film and talk about the impact Elliott's lesson in bigotry has had on their lives and attitudes. It is Jane Elliott's first chance to find out how much of her lesson her students had retained.
"Nobody likes to be looked down upon. Nobody likes to be hated, teased or discriminated against," says Verla, one of the former students.
Another, Sandra, tells Elliott: "You hear these people talking about different people and how they'd like to have them out of the country. And sometimes I just wish I had that collar in my pocket. I could whip it out and put it on and say 'Wear this, and put yourself in their place.' I wish they would go through what I went through, you know."
In the last part of "A Class Divided," FRONTLINE's cameras follow Jane Elliott as she takes her exercise to employees of the Iowa prison system. During a daylong workshop in human relations she teaches the same lesson to the adults. Their reactions to the blue-eye, brown-eye exercise are similar to those of the children.
"After you do this exercise, when the debriefing starts, when the pain is over and they're all back together, you find out how society could be if we really believed all this stuff that we preach, if we really acted that way, you could feel as good about one another as those kids feel about one another after this exercise is over. You create instant cousins," says Elliott. "The kids said over and over, 'We're kind of like a family now.' They found out how to hurt one another and they found out how it feels to be hurt in that way and they refuse to hurt one another in that way again."
官方网站:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/导演: William Peters
主演: Jane Elliott
官方网站:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/制片国家/地区: 美国
语言: 英语
上映日期: 1985-03-26
IMDb链接: tt0257489
http://movie.douban.com/subject/3883396/按此部编剧的剧情看,试验本身极不靠谱!第一,参与者全是社会上的失败者,都是为了拿钱而来,真实身份上的一致性,导致试验的不合理性!因为他们原本都一无所有,所以才没有了实验结束回到现实后的身份回归的顾虑!第二,如果参与者真实身份有不同,或者矛盾的升级如原作一样有卧底的唆使,红灯不亮是因为被迫,那么才会让人信服!第三,如果有现实的强者对狱警组的人说:你小子别找事!这只是个试验,小心俩礼拜以后,哥回头办理你!还会有人整他吗?
扮演狱卒的那些人在实验时可能犯坏,但会坏到那种程度么?真假狱卒的区别就在于,真的狱卒是近乎终生的,后面有整个体系作后台,而假的狱卒几天后就不是了,没有任何后台,他们犯坏的时候就不怕实验结束后的报复?
扮演犯人的也是,真的犯人即使出狱,社会地位仍然底下,受整个体系的控制无法反抗狱卒,但是假的就不同,他们只要在被狱卒捉弄时说一句“你小子等实验结束后看我不收拾你!”,那些狱卒一定不敢再怎么样,可是所有犯人的实验者,在受到不好对待时竟然没有一个人说这句话?都成了大傻子了?尤其里面还有一个真正进过监狱的人,想发出威胁震慑狱卒太容易了。
而且最最重要的一点,狱卒和犯人都是实验对象,都想赚钱,那么互相之间就有了牵制,如果狱卒太狠了,犯人完全可以用退出来危胁,意思是我赚不到钱你也别想赚到。
总之剧中的实验对象完全陷入了矛盾心理之中,一方面他们完全进入了实验角色,完全忘记了目前的状态只能持续几周,可以说入戏很深。另一方面,他们时时刻刻都知道这是个实验,在受不了的时候也想要退出实验。只能说他们都太敬业了,要不就彻底入戏,要不就彻底出戏,似乎从没想过把实验和现实混合考虑。
最后再说一个词就是“双盲”,一个实验对象如果对内容知道的太多是不会有想要的效果的,这里面犯人和狱卒都知道对方是假的,必然不会出现太多过激举动。如果实验的时候让他们互相不知情,告诉犯人的实验者对方是真的狱卒,让他们来体验犯人生活;告诉狱卒的实验者对方是真的犯人,让他们假扮狱卒,才会有可能出现剧中的情况。因为犯人心里有顾忌了,而狱卒心里没有了。
《死亡实验》是根据一个真实的心理学实验改编的电影。实验设计者将被试者们带到一个模拟监狱中,让他们随机扮演“囚犯”和“狱警”的角色,并承诺他们实验保证安全,只需要在模拟监狱中度过两个星期,且期间遵守为他们各自的角色预先设置好的行为准则,就可以拿到一笔可观的报酬。
被试者们很快就入戏了,“囚犯”们一进入角色,就用衣服上的号码来称呼自己和对方,而“狱警”们一旦穿上制服、手拿警棍,就好像获得了一种权力。一开始,“狱警”们用一些小把戏和口头上的玩笑来冒犯“囚犯”,渐渐地,“狱警”们开始将这种权力蔓延至“囚犯”的饮食规矩中,强迫“囚犯”吃完他们并不想吃的东西。当“囚犯”表现出反抗,“狱警”就表现出一种虐待狂一般的病态人格。考虑到被规定不能伤害“囚犯”,“狱警”们就在规则范围之内极力羞辱“囚犯”。
难以想象环境对人的影响之大,原先关系友善的两个人,隶属不同权力阶层之后,就会迅速成为敌对的双方。
拥有权力的感觉就像多巴胺分泌过剩,令掌权者处于一种很嗨的状态,近乎于癫狂,它会削弱人的同理心和道德感,尤其是受过权力羞辱且信奉这种权力秩序的人,一旦掌握了权力,他就会将这种羞辱加诸于别人。
影片中“狱警”和“囚犯”第一次发生意外摩擦的时候,“狱警”们扭曲事实,将其解释为囚犯的挑衅。“囚犯”们因此被要求做俯卧撑作为惩罚,这让囚犯们感受到一种不被尊重的屈辱感。然而,掌握权力的一方对发生的事件有绝对的解释权。一旦有某个“囚犯”开始向“狱警”妥协、屈服,其他“囚犯”就会在环境的压力下不得不选择从众。但是囚犯的屈服不仅不会赢得尊重和和平,反而会引起“狱警”们更深层次的蔑视。有趣的是,“囚犯”们在屈服之后,为了不引起认知上的失调,只好安慰自己说,做俯卧撑其实并没有那么屈辱,反而有利于强身健体。
当“狱警”发现他们的行为没有任何成本,不会造成任何后果之后,他们就会更加肆无忌惮地滥用权力。影片中的一个“狱警”获得权力感之后,性欲随之增长,企图鸡奸一个“囚犯”;另一个“狱警”违背男主(囚犯)的个人意志,强行剃光他的头发,摧毁他的自尊,实施一种精神上的强奸;他们还暴力逼迫男主说出“自己就是一个囚犯”,从心理上摧毁他的个人意志。
这其实是因为,权力是想象的产物,它并不实际存在。但是,当一个人或群体在观念上被赋予权力,他就不自觉地想要在现实世界中获得这种权力的展现。也就是说,掌权者通过对他人的控制来获得这种虚假的权力感,上面这些暴力行为就是一种把权力化虚为实的手段。(划重点,实验世界中,掌权者通过性和暴力获得权力感,而男权社会中,男性也是通过性和暴力获得权力感。)
然而,正因为权力并不真实存在,所以,掌权者最害怕的就是受到质疑和挑战,这些质疑和挑战让他们不得不面对“权力是虚幻的”这一事实。为了维持他们的权力感,他们巧言令色,企图让下位者接受命运和规则。一旦他们遭遇反抗,就会释放人性中的恶,甚至不惜残害他人的生命。
男主在实验之前曾经说过,当正义无法实现时,受害者应该忍让,这样社会才能进步。但经受过实验中的暴力对待之后,他意识到,这些所谓前人的哲思都是狗屁。
他们应该反抗!
这个世界并不提倡以暴力解决问题,并不是因为它比原始社会更文明,而是因为掌权者不想告诉你,谁掌握了暴力,谁就掌握了权力(想想毛爷爷为什么说枪杆子里出政权)。他们希望你体面、讲理,但是,只有弱者才会讲理,强者不需要,他们使用暴力,他们无时无刻不将暴力作为一种潜在的、在紧急情况下可以使用,以使下位者屈服的工具。
但是,当“囚犯”们团结起来暴力反抗时,曾经的“狱警”们才意识到权力的虚幻,落荒而逃。
惊悚的是,这一场真实实验仅仅只进行了六天,就在人性的异化、疯狂的暴力中被迫终止。当被试者们一离开这个模拟环境,人与人之间没有了权力高低之分后,他们立刻意识到了自己的荒谬,一切仿佛又回到了最初的时候。
更惊悚的是,“狱警”们刚开始进入游戏时,就将“囚犯”们称为girls、ladies、bitches。是的,对被试者们来说,这只是一场试验、游戏,但是对女性来说,游戏中的情景就是她们的真实世界。
————
从来没有人告诉女性说,体格与地位存在直接联系,暴力是权力的坚实后盾。他们只告诉女性要保持白幼瘦,不要和男性暴力对抗,但我始终认为每一位女性都应该去训练自己的肌肉和技巧,这不是鼓动她们在遇到危险时不管不顾地正面对抗,而是为了让她们试着去体验自己身体的力量,身体上的力量又会进一步强健她心理上的力量,两种力量的汇聚将会形成一种微妙的气场,使她免于生活中大部分冒犯和侵犯。就像影片中的男主说的,“至少我们可以反抗”,而女性呢?她们有反抗的能力吗?
比德国版差在哪里呢?男主角参加实验动机不同,美版单纯为了钱,带头造反也没头没脑,让人觉得他是个事逼。导演用了更刺激的画面,却显得很肤浅。结尾大家都莫名其妙恢复原来状态,更是逻辑不通。惠特克完全照搬《末代皇帝》里的样子。
很不错的创意,被导演讲烂了。另,Adrien Brody这两年接的片子可真不少。
这一部算是新翻拍的版本,令人印象深刻的开头,其实我们不比动物好多少
哪里有权力,哪里就有腐败;哪里有压迫,哪里就有反抗
人性本兽,无分善恶!
权力是春药,谁吃谁发烧!故事疑点不少,实在禁不起推敲;好在演员表现不错,所以整体属于有可看性。比起同期、同一路数的《致命应聘》强。吊梢眉影帝Adrien Brody演技发挥正常,意外的是居然大秀上半身,倒是一道开胃菜~
斯坦福监狱实验vs米尔格拉姆实验
制度改变人性,真实的试验是对犯人暴力太严重而终止,而不是片中犯人的胜利
严格意义上这并非2001德国版的一个简单翻拍,虽然两者都基于著名的斯坦福监狱实验进行改编,但创作者的根本追问并不相同。禁闭在漆黑囚笼中的Adrien.Brody面对监视摄像头(镜头,camera)的那句质问“why don't you stop this?”,才是这部片子真正想要质疑和声讨的。
动魄惊心,人性本恶
权力的意志。
配樂真不錯。看到男主角手握刀刃被割傷手掌時我的第一反應是:再也不能彈鋼琴了!(滾
实验室环境下邪眼与歪鼻的争斗。
怎么说呢,有点exam的影子,一个封闭的环境,给大家一个任务,来反映出人性!从人物的设置(Brody是个反战斗士,惠克特是个四十几岁还和母亲住在一起的基督徒),节奏把握和演员的表演上这部电影都是很不错的!问题出在一个是规则,红灯不是说好有暴力就亮的么,二是做这个实验的主体交待不清
主旨是想用理性的实验揭示人性,但电影却翻拍的很没逻辑,又僵硬、又刻意——还是原版好,虽然更压抑,但看着不来气。
感觉不错,决对权利导致绝对腐败。人性是可怕的,当权利为自己拥有的时候,或是感觉到权利的诱惑后,都会拼命去拥有并保持它,人是最可怕的动物。就是片头所示的短片一样,弱肉强食。大概这是大自然的规律吧。现实生活又何尝不是如此呢。
可怜的津巴多实验,被过度艺术化处理了。
虽然可能没有初始德国版的好(德国版还没看过),但它表达的意思和根据真实事件改变的事实让我震惊,一切都那么真实。在缺乏制度的情况下,被“人民”的权威会自然的变成暴君,镇压人民,慢慢失去所有的理性,完全的忘了,其实我们生来(进监狱)前都是平等的好人。看了感觉很冲击。
一正一邪两人演技都不错,最后反击那段看得我爽呀哈哈垂死他们!
可以理解其表达的主题,但是某些剧情节点处的转折过于突兀。