Three Identical Strangers reviewed by Mark Kermode 

It's not a documentary, it's just a nasty conspiracy style trope about jews in America, plenty of them doing the rounds. imho.

Badly Drawn that almost seems too reality tv for me personally

123rockfan I predicted that from the trailer

I think the reference to stranger than fiction implies that if this was a made up story people would say that this could never happen in real life. I think this is a perfect example of a stranger than fiction story. Really enjoyed the movie.

jefferson williams people with authority acting morally dubious isn’t stranger than fiction though. But we can agree to disagree lol

I mean it won't be him turning into a Maoist...

Foxy Johnston I made the terrible mistake of watching a news story about Rodriguez on CNN two days before it was released in theaters. I bet the director hated that Sugarman had to do a press tour before it came out

123rockfan yeah that really would take a little away from it! Epic story though!

Unfortunately the documentary is selective bordering to the downright fake. Sixto Rodriguez had a decades long career, toured internationally and even became a big enough deal in Australia that he could return and perform as a nostalgia-act in 2007 and 2010 prior to the documentary coming out. He wasn't Michael Jackson or anything, but he had a lot more success than the documentary lets on.

I was a little underwhelmed too, although I did enjoy it, and didnt see the 'twist' coming, I felt like the initial buzz "you wont believe what happens" "its the most shocking films in years" kind of worked against it for me. I kind of expected things to go much worse

Agreed, I've written up my review, a nasty film too.

depression, which I believe was due to being separated at birth, then the thought of being separated again.

Nope, it's actually the opposite. People who know know.

What’s the point of you making that up? Lol

You mean forth quadruplet... Get your lies straight! :)

And the twist is that the fourth triplet is Cardinal Ximénez of the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects this.

@@differous01 yes, that is the fourth good reply to this comment. We have 4 good replies to the comment: first one is about the opposite, second one is about the point, third one is about quadruplets, fourth one is about the well-known Cardinal Ximenez and the fifth one is mine. Sorry, thats actually 5 good replies to the comment, yes...

@@spacemonkey95 It's manipulative of its subjects and arguably anti-Semitic.

@@spacemonkey95 Do you have an actual counter-argument? Because you don't know me or what my prejudices may or may not be at all. I also notice you don't have a word to say about how the documentary manipulates its subjects.

​@@spacemonkey95 Take the scene in which the filmmaker shows David and Bobby an interview we've just seen in which one of the researchers reveals that it was no coincidence that they all had adoptive sisters, that in fact those sisters had been placed with the families as a control. He invites them, unsuspecting, to watch this footage for the first time in front of his cameras, ambushing them into an extraordinarily emotionally vulnerable position. Not content with that, he probes them: "How does it make you feel, watching that?" And David says, "Like a lab rat." And he's a lab rat twice over. First with this revelation about another aspect of the experiment, and second with the filmmaker manoeuvring him into this position and then sticking a cattle prod in him for good measure. Or how about the introduction of the female researcher we see interviewed? The first time we hear anybody else speak, it's in an interview, and they're talking directly about some part of the story or people involved. But when she's introduced, having been primed to dislike her by the story so far, we get this little tour of her house, with her taking us through her photos with presidents and film stars. Why? Could it be to position her as a figure of opprobrium? To align her to the elite, to encourage us to think of her as part of a closed society that holds and exercises power over the little guy? To make us hate her before she's even spoken about the pertinent subject matter? Because I found the film not only deeply cynical, but also simply atrocious at making a case. I was waiting for the film to back up its transparent construction of her as an evildoer with actual arguments, with an actual structured case, and it failed to. It seemed to assume that its audience will simply agree with any assertion it makes that what occurred was bad and wrong without actually applying a critical framework to it. I don't recall precisely what the woman said when interviewed but I do remember thinking, "...that's it?" The film uses tropes and cliches to signify to its audience what we should be thinking and feeling. It does barely any case-building of its own. Oh, there's also the section where Eddy's father's parenting is blamed for Eddy's suicide, based on nothing.

​@@spacemonkey95 ​ I'm not making assumptions, I'm going on what the film actually shows us. It's clear that David and Bobby don't know what they're about to see. We simply disagree on the way the female researcher is presented. There is a great emphasis on the father's parenting style and the film gives us acres of room to infer that that was partly to blame for Eddie's mental health issues, whatever they may have been. (It's a problem that whatever actual data and conclusions the experiment might have to offer aren't available to the filmmakers, which indeed isn't avoidable, but what IS an avoidable problem is how the film tries to speak on such issues when it can't.) Of course I'm offering my own interpretation of the film. Do you think I'm presenting my case as fact? I'm arguing for a perspective on it. It's meaningless to dismiss what I've said as "only interpretations". I also haven't said a word about the filmmakers' intentions or attitudes, only about their work. (Unlike you, who initially chose to rudely imply that I'm hateful and squalid rather than address my argument.) You can decide whatever you like about what I think of the filmmakers, if indeed I do hold an opinion on them, but guess what? That would be only an interpretation. As for the filmmakers' and subjects' first-hand accounts? Give me a break. The film is what I'm discussing. The film should make itself clear. I'm evaluating it on the premise that it does. If it doesn't, well, it's not a very good film then is it? You may have missed the point at the beginning where I said the film is "arguably" anti-Semitic. Because I agree that it's a severe claim to make and the analysis I offered is enough for me to raise a concern rather than to make the assertion full-on. (For that reason, I resisted invoking that reading during my description of the female researcher's introduction as a member of the elite, but frankly, it fits.) Proof is a nonsensical term to use, though. What one person sees as anti-Semitism, or some other form of racism or bigotry, is always available to be interpreted differently by someone else. There's no such thing as proof in this kind of case, it's about the argument you make. If you disagree, that's fine, though I haven't heard a good reason from you that my suggestion shouldn't be taken seriously. All you've said is "it's ludicrous", "that's really reaching", "it's a strong term and shouldn't be thrown around so liberally without solid proof", "don't be so bloody ridiculous" and "that's a warped and ludicrous interpretation of what was presented", none of which utterances address the substance of what I saw as questionable.

@@spacemonkey95 You need me to say "I believe" before "this is a hateful, squalid little film" because you think otherwise I'm claiming it as a fact? Really? Oh, when you say "it's neither of those things", is that your opinion or a fact? Because you didn't write "I believe". I'm confused. Again, you have simply asserted that there's nothing to support my claim rather than explain why what I DID present, a link between what the film enacts in the champagne scene and the trope of Jews secretly running the world, is poor evidence. You appear to be uninterested in participating in an actual discussion about the film, so unless you want to do so it seems counterproductive to continue. You aren't engaging with the points I've raised, which is odd. After all, if they're so nonsensical they should be easy to refute, shouldn't they?