I thought they only lasted 6 days, but at the end you see Forrest Whittaker holding a paycheck for 14k. I thought that if they broke the rules, thus prematurely ending the experiment that no one got paid.
share[deleted]
Good point. Just another of the movie's inconsistencies.
shareThe point of the experiment was to see what would happen if people's only moral guide is a red light--and that light never went on. Would their conscience take over, or would actions get out of control? In the end, the subjects all got paid even though the red light went on, because breaking the rules was never suppose to end the experiment--it WAS the experiment.
shareJeremy, you'd think that point would be obvious but some people need to be spoon fed.
"Watching porn is like reading recipe books without eating anything" My history teacher
Did you watch the whole movie? The light DID go on. No way would this stuff happen. "Guards" urinating on someone? Come on... Put me in a room under these circumstances and you bet your butt this crap doesn't happen.
shareThat's why you'd be put in a role of a prisoner.
shareExcept guards have been caught raping both male and female prisoners for decades so it wouldn't be hard to believe that at some point one peed on a prisoner before or after or instead of raping them.
"The People Of America Have Spoken THE REAL TITLE TOWN U.S.A IS VALDOSTA GEORGIA"
I am a bit late to the party but would make the point that people in positions of strength can abuse people who have been marginalized, especially in a closed environment. Without monitoring anything can happen. There are movie examples that exhibit the same tendencies like Shawshank. There are a plethora of even more startling examples involving abuse of refugees from real world situations today.
sharei agree with you,but not many people understand what this movie is about,its about aour lifes,our lifes on this planet,the red light is like a god
(and we dont know nothing about that god,like they didnt know nothing about red light,we follow nothing)
to us,or goverment,and we are like prisoners just follow their rules and do nothing,taking and taking,its just a message, we need,we have to resist stupidness of our goverment and people in charge (control of our lifes)of the world...it will allways be : power,greed,ego,selfishness,in god we trust,wars and other *beep* like that..
Well said, sir, well said.
shareAbsolutely garcdian... and that's also why the purpouse of the movie was obvious for some people from the begenning and not at all for others...
I agree with you, this is exactly the point, and even though people probably have read your post, they keep dismissing it. The people not paying attention would probably be as bright as those who were the guards in this film.
shareThat explains it! I never thought of it that way.
shareDon't listen to these idiots. The guards were the ones who broke the rules. The red light did not go off when they used violence...what did the prisoners do?nothing...and if you piss on somebody its fine and not violent? the film is stupid because if i was the prisoner i'd do something about that sooner rather than later,realistically. i rate this 5/10 purely because some of the acting was good.and i'm not a fan of forest whitaker. and i don't know why i'm telling you this lol,i just watched the movie so i felt i should comment.
shareI think what needs to be addressed is the fact that, although this movie is a remake, the message is completely different. The original movie followed along the lines of the actual historical experiment pretty faithfully with a few dramatic liberties (i.e. in the real experiment, no one died and no one was raped or almost raped). The purpose of the original experiment had nothing to do with the red light regulating verbal and physical violence - it had to do with the psychological toll that losing freedom took on regular people and the consequences of "group think" and "group act". It actually explains a lot about the mentality behind certain groups like the Nazis - their violence was sanctioned by a larger authority and the power that they had over their fellow man corrupted them.
This film's message is shallow and lacking in comparison to the original German film and the book and the original experiment. The ending doesn't even address certain issues like what happened to the would-be rapist and his victim - do they just board the bus home together like nothing happened? Whitaker and Brody share a meaningful look, but no one says anything about how Whitaker just killed one of the volunteers and committed several assaults beyond that. The ending is unrealistic and lame.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
It also doesn't explain why most of these people are morons.
They were told "follow the rules, and you get $14,000. Break the rules, the experiment is over, and you all get nothing."
But the prisoners took the guard's "no physical harm" rule as an opportunity for them to run the place. You are a prisoner, you are supposed to act like a prisoner where you will get harsh penalties if you act up and cause problems. Just because the guards aren't allowed to hurt you doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want. You still have to act your role of a prisoner.
The guards didn't want to be abusive, they weren't even told to do things to the prisoners like in the original experiment. The original experiment involved the guards breaking down the prisoners and getting them disoriented and such. They had to actually DO things to the prisoners. In the movie, the guards are just told to "enforce the rules." If the prisoners just followed the rules as they were explained to them, the guards may have never became abusive.
It's funny because the only reasonable prisoner in the movie was the guy that was ACTUALLY IN PRISON BEFORE. He was like "calm down, why are you causing problems? Follow the damn rules and in 2 weeks we all get paid." The guards were doing nothing to provoke the prisoners, they weren't abusing them, they were just.. there. And the prisoners (especially Brody) felt the need to revolt against them on day 1 for no apparent reason. You're going to get $14,000 in 2 weeks, why are you so angry? Why are you so unwilling to follow the rules OF THE EXPERIMENT. These aren't rules created by the guards, why are you angry at them?
I don't understand why Adrien Brody's character was so unwilling to follow some simple rules for 2 weeks, and was so disrespectful to these people that are just acting their roles like he SHOULD be doing. He was just a douche that was the main reason the guards became abusive, and led to most of the violence in the movie. And he didn't deserve to get the girl at the end because of his poor handling of the situation. She should have just seen him as the monster that he is and said she didn't want to be with him.
Besides the fact that someone was going to die if they didnt get their medication?
____
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
That is right. That was irrevelant as you well know. Honestly, making *beep* up like that is silly. We watched the film, we know that what you described didn't happen.
Do you go to history class and claim that Washington was the president of France? What an idiot.
[deleted]
Cause and effect. What he described simply didn't happen. The medication scene took place late (r) in the film after the earlier scenes that resulted in mass violence.
He is simply making *beep* up to suggest that the medication scene is an explanation for these earlier scenes because the medication scene didn't happen until much later in the film.
You don't argue that World War 2 explained the (relative) unwillingness of US to join in World War 1 because World War 2 demonstrated the heavy price involvement would exert. That is nonsense.
This is where the original makes much more sense. The main character is working for a newspaper to gather as much information about the experiment as possible. So, he creates the situations early on just to make it more interesting. He's poking the fire, and later realizes that it was a really bad idea.
shareI agree. His political beliefs apparently did not allow him to obey the experiment. Yet he willingly joined the experiment for money despite not intending to obey the work requirements.
His intentions were apparently all along to defraud his employer of their money. Honestly, he deserved every bit of violence that was inflicted upon him.
That was the whole reason why the experimenters chose 77. He had no religion. He said his morals came from his heart. They knew he was a hippy and was going to be the one to have an issue with authority. Yes its frustrating as an audience watching this movie, screaming 'just swallow your pride and follow the rules' , but then we wouldnt have a movie would we?
shareCorrect, except about the light.
In the real experiment there was no red light. Zimbardo (the scientist who ran the experiment) was actively involved in the experiment, taking on the role of prison superintendent. The reason he pulled the plug on the real-world version was because his girlfriend convinced him that he too had internalised his role.
Zimbardo should have been the red-light but he became a victim of the experiment himself and never went off (so to speak).
The scientists strongly encouraged them to use violence by promising external control and not following through. That would have been nowhere near a clean experiment.
Violence was used because money was paid for violence, not because people are violent. [obviously in real life, people are violent. I mean within the film context]
the rules didn't end the experiment, otherwise it would've ended before that, with all the violence that took place. the rules were part of the experiment.
the men got paid for taking part, and probably would've helped them shut up a bit.
This movie was really bad executed. Has great potential, but goes nowhere.
The characters are very flat one dimensional, scene after scene you see everything coming, one cliche after another...
Agreed. The movie would have been much more effective with more character development. I wanted to know more about the Whitaker character and the sexually confused guard as well. The more we know what makes them tick, the more devastating it would be to see the implications of their "change" during the experiment. Instead, the movie was looking for cheap thrills and the broad strokes.
In a way, the movie failed its own experiment.
It makes no sense after watching the film
188
00:18:12,100 --> 00:18:15,300
Nothing is to come or go from the cell block.
189
00:18:15,400 --> 00:18:17,600
Nothing from the outside world.
190
00:18:17,900 --> 00:18:21,900
If you look in your lockers,
you will see a printout with the five rules
191
00:18:22,100 --> 00:18:24,300
that the prisoners are to follow at all times.
192
00:18:24,500 --> 00:18:26,200
Please read them aloud with me.
193
00:18:26,500 --> 00:18:27,900
"Rule number one:
194
00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:32,500
"Prisoners must eat three meals a day
and all food must be consumed.
195
00:18:32,700 --> 00:18:35,600
"Two: There will be 30 minutes of rec daily.
196
00:18:35,800 --> 00:18:40,800
"Three: Prisoners are allowed only
in prisoner-designated areas.
197
00:18:40,900 --> 00:18:44,900
"Four: Prisoners must speak
only when spoken to.
198
00:18:45,000 --> 00:18:50,700
"And five: Prisoners must not touch
the guards under any circumstances."
199
00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:55,400
Those that break the rules
must be punished commensurately.
200
00:18:56,000 --> 00:18:57,700
What does "commensurate" mean?
201
00:18:58,600 --> 00:19:01,400
This experiment is not about individuals.
202
00:19:01,500 --> 00:19:04,200
If any one person leaves, it's over.
203
00:19:04,400 --> 00:19:06,300
If a prisoner does break the rules,
204
00:19:06,400 --> 00:19:09,900
you will have 30 minutes to choose
proper disciplinary action.
205
00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:13,000
If you fail to do so,
that red light will come on,
206
00:19:13,100 --> 00:19:17,000
the experiment will be terminated,
and you will not get paid.
207
00:19:17,800 --> 00:19:20,600
- What did you say?
- You either maintain strict order,
208
00:19:20,800 --> 00:19:22,900
or you don't get paid.
209
00:19:23,600 --> 00:19:25,700
I will see you in two weeks.
They would only get paid if they survived through the 2 weeks, but instead only 6 days. And it doesn't make any sense for them to get paid.
The red light went on but that was telling the guards/prisoners the experiment was over/cancelled, thus no one would get paid but they did.
What the $#!& happened really? Why did were they paid if the experiment was cancelled?! The only ones able to answer this were those who were in the flick, or the producer.
That rule was there for motivation. To create tension/pressure between guards and prisoners.
It was a psycological experiment.
You dont just go through psycological hell and dont get paid. I would sue those mo-fo's for sure if i hadn't got my money.
[deleted]
I would encourage you to do some research about the actual experiment because it explains a lot about the films. The original experiment was to last two weeks, but was ended after 6 days because there were concerns about the mental health and safety of the prisoners. Guards routinely pulled mattresses out of the cells and humiliated the prisoners, but no violence was ever used. It's not terribly off the mark to say that, had the experiment continued, violence surely would have ensued. Several of the prisoners offered to go without payment if they would only be released and the guard volunteers expressed a lot of anger that they were not allowed to finish the experiment. Ultimately, it caused a lot of emotional trauma for those involved and the professor running the experiment faced professional consequences rather than legal.
In this remake, the experiment seems to be less about the psychological effects of incarceration than it has to do with absolute power being dictated by a red light. There are religious implications all over the place and someone on this board drew a parallel between the red light and God - if God doesn't immediately answer with consequence, then our actions are justified and rational. Arbitrary rules become absolute commandments and the guards becomes crusaders rather than enforcers. Therefore, when the red light goes on, God has passed judgment and removed the power given to the guards. Everyone is paid because the threat of nonpayment was simply a ruse to make the guards take their position seriously - do your job well and God will reward you; fail to maintain strict order and God will spurn you and you will get nothing. Ultimately, this film fails to live up to the intensity of the actual experiment or the film that it seeks to remake. Uninspired tripe.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
While I understand that ultimately the real experiment was to see how far the guards and prisoners would go without seeing the red light..in my opinion, a major plot hole is that this was supposed to be a "legitimate" experiment, not some shady, underground scheme..
This is supposed to be America..where if you see threats of rape and murder, you shut things down. The prisoners were supposed to be willing participants and getting paid..but when Adrian Brody clearly asks the camera to be let out, nothing happens??!? Wouldn't he be allowed to leave, and just not get paid??
Some of the prisoners were explained that even with no violence, their civil rights may be violated...ok, so civil rights may be violated if they VOLUNTARILY continue with the experiment, and get paid..
The only thing that would make sense is that the supposedly legitimate doctor would be tried for manslaughter..
[deleted]
"Das Experiment" handles the whole situation a lot better - the main character is a journalist hoping to scoop the experiment and, when he asks to be let go, they tell him to wait a day before he makes his decision. Another person asks the same thing, waits the day, and still decides to leave and they let him go.
This movie exaggerates on the real experiment because people were released in the real thing and it didn't last as long as it did in the movie because they pulled the plug on it. But, if this movie were based a little more firmly in reality, you'd be correct - volunteers would definitely not stand for the sort of crazy treatment being doled out in this movie. I think what the movie is trying to suggest is what the experiment set out to prove - real prisoners deal with this sort of abuse everyday and stay silent. It's just sad that the German movie handles our history a lot better than we did and they didn't even need any big name actors...
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
The supposedly legitimate doctor was tried for manslaughter. It very clearly says that at the end of the movie.
I was more curious about Forest Whitaker's character. He killed a man, and there's plenty of video evidence. It would have been interesting to see him assume the role of prisoner in a real setting.
I would assume it's because the experiment wasn't necessarily supposed to laugh 14 days, it was just supposed to get results. As well it would kind of be "hush money" because someone died during the experiment. I'm sure the researchers would want them to shut up and move on, hence no researchers appearing after the experiment is over.
shareWhat's the whole point of the experiment if it is kept a secret? They may have gotten the results they wanted, but they can't disclose it to the general public for fear of prosecution.
Game Over Man, Game Over!share
I don't think the wanted the guy to die, it just happened, and by that point, everything else has already gone to far, so why not finish the experiment?
shareStill doesn't dismiss the fact someone died under their watch and they're going to have to suffer the consequences no matter what the results are.
Game Over Man, Game Over!share
What's the whole point of the experiment if it is kept a secret? They may have gotten the results they wanted, but they can't disclose it to the general public for fear of prosecution.
[deleted]
[deleted]
So, you were confused that he got paid the full amount but not that he murdered someone on camera and was not charged with a crime? Your not the only one...sadly. It seems no one on these boards had a problem with that.
shareI think it's pretty obvious that the guy who ran the experiment was lying about a lot of things. He likely never intended to turn the red light on, the whole point of the experiment was to see how people reacted when their conscience was basically controlled by someone else. He wanted to see how far people would go when they felt their acts were being sanctioned. He probably paid them the full amount to keep them quiet about how out of control things got.
shareThe guards didnt want to hurt the 'inmates'? You obviously forgot that Forest's character in the movie gets horny after he roughs up the inmates. They showed his hard-on when he went to the bathroom right after 'scaring' Brody's character for the first time.
He was mentally screwed up, he enjoyed hurting the inmates and the other 'cops' joined him. Its psychological, Forest's character was like the alpha-male among the officers, the others are mentally weaker so they follow his orders until he goes too far with his insanity.
The guards didn't want to hurt the inmates. If not for the violence caused by 77, the experiment may well have ended on a happy note.
But 77 never intended to obey the work requirements. He had (apparently) always intended to defraud the scientists out of their money. That was the cause of the violence. Not Forest. [obviously Forest gravely upped the level once 77 started it. But he didn't start it technically]