THREE IDENTICAL STRANGERS

US, 2018, 96 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Tim Wardle.

Clearly a title meant to intrigue – and it certainly does.

At first, this seems a very cheerful show, an interview with a middle-aged man telling the story of his going to college, everybody greeting him familiarly, his being puzzled, and then discovering that he resembled a young man who had been at the college the year before. He gets in contact and finds that they are identical in appearance and manner.

The two men were 19 at the time of their discovering each other, so all was very exciting, the media was fascinated, journalists were interviewing, articles in the papers and magazines – which then lead to another family looking at the photos and realising that the son in their house also resembled the two and that they all shared the same birthdate and had been adopted out by the same American Jewish adoption service.

So, the audience is carried along with all this cheerfulness, the young men bonding instantly with each other, enjoying the publicity, and all the TV shows, living the high life in New York.

The parents, however, were not pleased that they had not been informed that their adopted child had two siblings, that there were triplets. The mood of the film begins to change, becoming more emotionally demanding as well as puzzling.

Meanwhile, the three young men open up a restaurant, working together. Date, get married, the beginnings of their own families. The different parents also seem to get on pretty well with one another and the audience gets to know them and their backgrounds as well.

And then the mood begins to change further, working like an investigative story, probing the adoption agency and its methods, the secrecy, the choices of the particular families and their backgrounds, and some follow-up to see how the children developed within their families, a project, officers visiting and filming, asking questions, everything being filed.

There is a tragic aspect of the film which also jolt the emotions, issues of health, mental health, questions of heredity. And, there are appearances from a set of identical twins who had been adopted out and then discovered each other, who are also interviewed on television, fascinated by the similarities in their separate lives.

At the beginning, two of the triplets interviewed are in their 50s, looking back with some exhilaration, some regrets, some angers as they try to investigate what actually happened to them, the agency’s choice of their parents and differing family backgrounds, and each of them having an adopted sister two years older.

This documentary is well paced, draws its audience in with its various emotions and moods, some very human experiences but also raising a great number of scientific questions, even more ethical questions, and the ever-continuing debate about nature versus nurture.

1. The impact of the documentary? Information, emotional identification, surprises, turns in plot, investigation, themes for reflection?

2. The New York story, the 1960s and the succeeding decades, the consequences?

3. Editing and pace, moods, emotions, the musical score?

4. The introduction to Robert, talking head, talking about college, arriving, everybody affirming him, calling him a kitty? The decision to contact him? The phone call, the discovery? Talking heads friends and their contribution? The story, the strong bonding, the interviews by the journalist, the newspapers? David’s family, seeing the photos, making contact? The three?

5. The three and their immediate bonding, the strong resemblance? The media response, focusing on similarities, the TV interviews, their response, at age 19, living the high life in New York, clubs, Copacabana, 54?

6. The background of the families, the different social status for each of the families? Introduction to the parents, the homes, the upbringing? The meeting of the parents?

7. The parents not happy with the deception, confronting the board, the father returning and the drinking of champagne – as if the committee was off the hook? The irony of that each of the family had an adopted daughter two years older than the brother?

8. The girls and the interviews, the brothers and their fiancées, the weddings, running the restaurant together? Eddie and his liveliness, the daughter, happiness, the Frank talking by his wife? The dramatic news of Eddie suicide and the reactions? The brothers? And the later interview with Eddie’s father and his being a disciplinarian, regrets about his not communicating with his son as well is he might?

9. The women twins, on television, the similarities of their lives, issues of mental health?

10. The twist on the turn for information, the experiment, the initiator of the experiment, the different assistance and their interviews, information? The ceiling of the results till 2066? The aim of the project, the decisions about the children, separating them, giving them to different families, different social status? Observers watching, filming, taking notes, writing up the files? The parents not knowing?

11. The reaction of the men themselves, seeing themselves as lab rats, the fact that there was no report?

12. The issue of nature versus nurture – and the need for more scientific information? Heredity? Upbringing?

13. Bob and David, their continued investigations, interviews, David contacting authorities to get commissions? The offhand responses?

14. Eddie’s father, the interview, his grief? Judgements on himself? The audiences attitude towards him?

15. The background of the women, the mothers, step mothers, aunts and their observations?

16. Further information, but no opening of the files? Where will this lead?

17. The importance of science investigation? The importance of ethical questions?