>>4
I don't know man. The way I saw it, it's talking about law.
>The monkeys remember, but don't communicate beyond the beating
People don't realy communicate with government and hardly communicate with cops.
>are incapable of asking why and why not
So are citizens in most cases.
>Also, it focuses only the brutality of the situation leading to the self-defeating prophecy, while human interaction, even at a bureaucratic level, is never that straightforward and humans also have a higher chance of ignoring the barbs of others to accomplish something.
I don't disagree with this completely but how many times did you get "this is how it's always been" as a reply? I mean, even if it realy makes no sense, this is a usual reply to many important questions. After all, how much original thought is actualy going on around? The part where I disagree with you and I find the experiment correct is that most people live, shop and die as if programmed. As if they live a carbon copy life of someone else - the 'normal', average person.
>A lot is accomplished because people do something while deflecting massive criticism.
Of course mate, there are exceptions and they are there to verify the rule. These people are probably the most usefull of humans. We're talking people who actualy do the original thinking. The ones who take on a problem and start from scratch and think their way until they solve it.
>Cutting away to the police officer beating an individual with a war protest sign behind it was heavy handed on the presentation part. It creates context behind a scene that, in itself, has nothing but ambiguity. No narrative. If we are to assume the assumed premise of the film by the juxtaposition, we are falling victim to the film's criticism of "monkey see."
I find it reasonable and purpuseful that it was put there. It's there to point out the connection between the experiment and real life. Here' what I understood and I'm more than happy to discuss it. The protester is the monkey going for the banana. Demonstrating for what he thinks is common sense. "There's a banana, let's go eat it" - the government is taking away our rights let's fight back (i'm not sure if that's the best example). The cop is the monkey that's doing the beating (obviously). Even though (from my bad example) the government takes away his rights too, he's beating the protestor because "it's the law" - even though there are laws the protect protestors and clearly give them the right to oppose the government. If you look further than my bad example (sorry that wa the best I could think of right now) and see the actual mechanism behind the example, you'll see there isn't much difference from the experiment.
>Additionally there's no explanation for the water cannon, metaphorically.
I think the water cannon would be the concequences from "the law". Let's not forget that laws are far from perfect. The are made humans after all, specifically politicians. People not very famous for their honesty...
>>5
The 'newcommers' in society cannot exactly judge the correctness of the law.
Bonus videos:
Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmwSC5fS40w
Milgram Experiment on obedience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9IVSfAAHoA
PS.I'm convinced that mechanisms like this work because people like derren brown are making loads of money by abusing these mechanisms for fun. Enjoy the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZZLukMA2ug