Movie Reaction: Three Identical Strangers

Formula: (Twins * 1.5) / Conspiracy Theory

This is a tricky movie to write about. I don't know how much to give away. For people of a certain age, a lot of this story may already be known to you. For the rest, it's all new. I'm going to assume that anyone bothering to read this, there's a certain amount you already know. At the very least, the picture I'm using gives something away. If at all possible, I'd recommend going into this documentary blind. It's pretty good and has a crazy story. For anyone not yet convinced or looking for my thoughts on it, please continue.

Three Identical Strangers is the incredible story of three young men (triplets) who found out they were separated at birth and given to three different families. The story of how they eventually met is incredible. It falls under the category of "truth is stranger than fiction" (even though I do disagree with that phrase on principal). The documentary tells that story and the whirlwind of media that followed them in the 80s. The brothers and assorted friends and family do most of the narration. The latter half of the movie looks into how this happened; how none of the families knew about the other brothers. And that's where I'll stop. As crazy as the "long lost triplets" narrative is, the direction it goes from there is almost harder to believe, but in a different way.

This movie is in the "I just have to tell this story" category of documentaries. Something like The Wolfpack or The Imposter come to mind as other examples. There are stories that a filmmaker hears and just has to put to film. It wouldn't work as a fictionalized Hollywood movie because people would say it's too implausible. I like these kinds of documentaries, because they more often fall under the "exploration" type of documentary*. This starts as an exploration and moves a bit away from that by the end.

*A quick recap. Most docs are either 'explorations' or 'arguments'. Explorations have less of an apparent agenda. The focus is on collecting information and putting together a narrative from that. Agenda docs start with an idea and shape everything to fit it, including the research. It's kind of like the documentary difference between story-driven and plot-driven storytelling.

I like the story of Three Identical Strangers more than the documentary. It starts well enough. I don't think it's possible to tell the story of how the brothers met in a way that isn't interesting. The more we learn about why, the movie drags. And that isn't entirely the filmmaker's fault. A lot of that part is unknown. This is a story with a lot of holes in it. The holes become the story essentially. This is a hydra of a story. I imagine that every time the filmmaker got the answer to one thing, he found three more questions. I could see this ending up like the Paradise Lost documentaries. Three Identical Strangers calls attention to an injustice. The visibility of this film gets more people to open up about certain things, then the filmmaker can come back with a conclusionary documentary later on. As is, Three Identical Strangers feels incomplete. As the film progresses, the brothers shift from being the subject of the film to objects in it; an example. The further the focus drifted from them, the more it dragged. It was going in interesting directions. It just didn't hold together as well. It was like the filmmaker got bored talking about the brothers. When things shifted back to be specifically about them, it got more broad. It spoke in generalities rather than specifics. Either they were trying to protect the details of the peoples' lives or they didn't care.

Great story. Meh execution.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend