MovieChat Forums > The Experiment (2010) Discussion > 77 was the primary/sole cause of the vio...

77 was the primary/sole cause of the violence


Scope: Strictly to the portion of the film prior to the assault by the guards on their fellow guard for smuggling the insulin. The scientist was responsible (both legally and morally) for the violence after that portion of the film.





77 was informed of the work requirements and work environment of his employment. He willingly and of his own free will agreed to the work conditions. He was informed of his specific role (prisoner) and chose to continue with his employment even after that was made known to him.

He then deliberately chose to violate the work requirements (to finish his beans) despite agreeing to his employment. He did not choose to terminate his employment either (by requesting to leave). He understood that his violation would require either a response (retribution) or the termination of his employment. Since he did not choose to directly terminate his employment, presumably he understood and wished to invite a response (retribution).

Throughout the entire film, he deliberately created or sought to create a climate and atmosphere of violence by enacting his private political beliefs within a setting that he accepted the promise of payment for implicitly not enacting said political beliefs. He amply deserved all the violence that was inflicted upon him.

reply

By the way, clearly I cannot control the actions of others. But I have extremely explicitly noted that my post was strictly restricted to the film prior to 1:08 (the unveiling of the assault upon their fellow guard). If you choose to refer to the latter part and yet in response to my post, you may of course do so. But that would just be nonsense.

reply

Looking at the FAQ for this film, actually I think the guards should have probably tossed 77 into the solitary confinement tank since apparently that was provided by the scientists and within the rules.

That would have cut short a lot of the nonsense.

reply

I agree with all this and an earlier solitary was also my resolution.

I do want to point out something that alot of people have been overlooking though, as far as i remember it. He couldn't just quit once in the prison. If any of them opted out the experiment as a whole was over and none of them got paid. Thats one thing that kept the guards cohesive and the prisoners as placated as they were.

reply

True. But given how selfish 77 was, I doubt that that would have deterred him much.

reply

I think you are missing an important point.
The inmates did not know the rules the guards were given.
So 77 didn't know about the food.

Forest's character was to blame, he was bullied by his mum and probably everyone else so when he got some power it went to his head. He was severely unstable.

77 was looking out for everyone else...

reply

All the recruited employees were informed of the job requirements both during the initial recruiting phase at the recruitment centre and thereafter again at the employment location.

77 was informed and chose to continue with his employment. 77 was looking out for trouble. He attempted to exercise his civil rights when he already willingly sold these civil rights (for a limited duration) in exchange for cash. This is a sort of theft. Punishment was correctly dealt out.

Don't steal.

reply

Nowhere in the movie did it show the "prisoners" being told the specific 5 rules that the guards were given.

reply

I cannot remember if this is indeed the case. Therefore I will not attempt to claim either way, although I am doubtful about your confidence.

The employees were informed that they were selling their rights in exchange for cash. Presumably those rights which the law forbids the sale thereof are not included, since that would be an illegal contract of purchase. I.e. you cannot agree to become a slave.

You can however agree to sell most other rights and that is effectively what the employees have done. Moreover, the guard informed 77 of the requirement to finish the food. If you sell something and take it back later without the purchaser's consent, that is theft. 77 deserved violence.

reply

Their "contract" also said violence would not be allowed. Why wasn't that part of the contract enforced? Sounds like that "contract" was nothing more than toilet paper.

Oh, and did that sociopath rapist first haul the guy in to get a blowjob (unsuccessfully, that first time) before or after 1:08? If before, was 77 responsible for that too?

I'm curious what kind of "prison guard" you would be in that situation.


Understanding is a three-edged sword.

reply

Nonsense retarded post.

Please make sure you are referring to the correct movie before posting. Read my OP again.

reply

Brilliant rebuttal.




Understanding is a three-edged sword.

reply

Yea, it is, actually.

Do make sure you are posting in the right forum before mouthing off.

reply

I just watched this, and when 77 is protesting about the food, they actually do tell him that it is 'rule number 5, all prisoners must clean their plate' he ignores the wardens and drops his food on the guys hands

reply

I.e. he "cleaned his plate".


Understanding is a three-edged sword.

reply

The actual rule was all prisoners were to 'clean' there plate - that does not necessarily mean they are to finish all food on said plate. It could just as easily mean that all inmates are empty any leftovers into the bin before exiting. It was the guards who choose to interpret the rule as eat all of our food. 77 did not once refuse to 'clean' his plate.

Additionally there was a rule that there was supposed to be no use of violence - I could just as easily say the (some) guards most certainly used psychological violence - which is still violence.

reply

I get what you mean entirely.

Just because these employees signed a contract of service with explicit working conditions and job scope doesn't actually mean that they were bound to comply by these terms.

The employment contract was merely for guidance and actually 77 was entirely in compliance all along. Any appearance to the contrary was entirely a massive delusion on the part of the other employees.



Once you decide to go into nonsense *beep* there is no longer any point in having a discussion. Kindly take your foolishness elsewhere as you are not arguing on the basis of merit, but rather delusion. My thread is intended to be rather more high-minded than that.

reply

And again, the rules also said, no violence. So the guards violated their "contract" as well. They were to keep order by other means.

Really, it's obvious there was no real "contract" being enforced--the ones who ran the experiment did allow violence, even though they assured the "contractees" that it wouldn't be allowed, that they would be safe from it, that the experiment would be terminated at the first instance of it. So the folks who drew up the "contract" lied. So this "contract" you go on sanctimoniously defending, is as good as toilet paper, isn't it.

Besides, if this "contract" really was valid, the company wouldn't have paid the participants $14,000 at the end. Don't you ever wonder why they did? According to you, they wouldn't have had to, since the "contract" had been breached, and the experiment didn't last the full 14 days.

(Answer: because this company had no leg to stand on, and they probably knew they were already very exposed legally for what they allowed to happen. It was implied that there was a legal case against the company ("sure, I'll testify") even after they did get paid.)

My thread is intended to be rather more high-minded than that




"High-minded".

There's nothing "high-minded" at all about defending sadism.


Understanding is a three-edged sword.

reply

Nonsense retarded post.

Please make sure you are referring to the correct movie before posting. Read my OP again.

reply