This movie is stupid (the real logic failure). - Exam (2010) Discussion

[–] hrudzko 14 years ago

Yeah I agree
of course it wasn't about the question as is it was about the behaviour but the resolution makes it all seem stupid - okay, people showed their true nature, here's the grand exposure, the question & the answer sound really funny, as if the director just wanted to make a joke but the joke turned out to be not at all appropriate. it might have been better to get along without it at all.
And plus in the beginning when the question was actually asked - some of them could have said 'no'. or 'yes'. then what? so it makes the scenario a little bit far-fetched
although i like the humanistic ideas in the film & on the whole the film is really fascinating

reply

[–] Aloft 14 years ago

Yeah, I can see them successfully baiting that question the way it was shown. At a high-powered group interview like that, it would not be wise to put forth questions in front of the others because it would tip your hand too much too early. Unless the request for questions are very genuinely put, and clearly to be a part of the interview process of course---but in the flippant, rhetorical ritual way that it was handled on film---they aren't actually asking if anyone really has any questions. In handling the tone of the delivery that way, he at once turns it into a familiar ritual, discouraging anyone from speaking up and breaking the ritual, and so also discouraging all memory of it---just as a handshake at the beginning of a meeting would be forgotten.

It's the ability to rise out of that automatic conception of things and see a clue hidden in the wastes of a human's habitual mind that they wanted to scavenge. The blind spot. If you can root out a clue from your societal blindspots, then you know how to think orthogonally---you know your own brain well enough to know where the hidden parts might be---and you can apply that craft productively rather than just haphazardly and some of the time. You can even do it under pressure. That's a special breed of person, and this test was designed to ferret them out.

Which answer they gave, no or yes, didn't matter. The only thing that mattered was that they found the question amid the rules.

What I especially liked is that burying the question there practically guarantees only one person will get it right. As they discovered early on, "teamwork" was encouraged. The only thing is, the actual solution the exam had literally nothing to do with teamwork. So whoever found the answer probably wouldn't say anything, seeing how deadly simple it is once spoken, knowing that only one person can get out with a job, it's best to hold it in and hope nobody else guesses right too. It's not at all a problem that requires a procedural discovery, which is what teamwork is great at. It requires a sudden leap, individual leap. There's a small chance 2 people out of 8 would make that leap, but it's pretty improbable; in fact I'd say it's probably rare, and that wasn't the first time eight people sat in that room.

reply

[–] acosean 14 years ago

SPOILERS

On "Any Questions?"

I think the candidates couldn't answer a "yes" or a "no" because by doing so (in the course of the 80-minute exam), they would be disqualified by communicating to the invigilator. That's why all kept quiet. But when the last candidate articulated her answer to the invigilator (on whether she had any questions) was done when the lead time was over. So communicating with him then wouldn't have disqualified her.

On the Small-Print of "Question 1"

I seriously still have no clues to the relevance and significance of the above, other than knowing that the company needs the PA to the CEO to be able to discern the details as well.

reply

[–] Aloft 14 years ago

Common mistake, see it everywhere on the board:

I think the candidates couldn't answer a "yes" or a "no" because by doing so (in the course of the 80-minute exam), they would be disqualified by communicating to the invigilator.

You said it yourself, in the course of the 80 minute exam. He asked the question, and only after that did he turn around and start the clock. The rules only apply within the 80 minutes, and those had not yet begun.

reply

[–] viviclaugimenez 14 years ago

I agree. The invigilator asks "Any questions?" before starting the clock. Therefore, it wouldn't break the rules to ask at this point. However, "the only rules here are our rules"...So, who knows whether it would have been acceptable to answer then?
I also agree that whatever the frame for this situation, what the company was looking for was a way to test how far the candidates would go to get the job, so that the CEO would learn more about their skills, qualifications and personal traits.
As a teacher, though, I'd say that 99% of the times, when students are nervous because they have an exam paper in front of them, the question "Any questions?" is left unanswered...for several reasons: they are nervous, they don't want to embarrass themselves with "stupid" questions, they may not be sure what the teacher's question is actually referring to...So, it wasn't surprising to me (and, I think, to anyone watching the film seeing that intimidating environment: an armed guard, a windowless room, cameras, etc) that nobody said: Yes, I have a question, or even No.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xXAssassinXx 14 years ago

It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement. You're just plain wrong. As clearly illustrated at the end of the movie, the invigilator was looking for a response to his question, but the rules were not to communicate with him within the 80 minutes. Blondie clearly passed the exam by answering the question, and by doing so outside of the 80-minute period. This is inarguable.

Nothing you have to say is anywhere near as useful or important as you think it is.

reply

[–] wastedemail 13 years ago

Candidate 1 was the CEO. Could the phrase on the paper ("Question 1.") be meant as an instruction to literally question Candidate 1?

reply

[–] gnomasaurus 13 years ago

actually what you said is the ONLY way it would somehow make sense. But the glasses of candidate 1 was required to see the clue that told them to question candidate one.

reply

[–] no_paranoia 13 years ago

plus the brown guy was forced to leave against his will, after they already established this wouldn't disqualify him. and why was the black guy disqualified? and why was she allowed to win after the time had expired?

reply

[–] mark-hansen11 12 years ago

He chose to leave the room. He had a choice between getting shot and staying.

And you're missing the point. The point is your behavior. The job is to decide who lives and dies, between millions of people who will need the rapid-cell-regeneration pill they invented. They don't really care about the question, but their behavior during the exam.

reply

[–] endorphinz 12 years ago

It's not the only way.

On the sheet, there were no questions. So when the guy asked "Are there any questions?", the correct answer would be "No", because on the sheet of paper it only said "Queston 1.", with no question actually written after it.

There were no questions on any of the sheets.

So to paraphrase, "Are there any questions...on the paper?"

Answer: "No."

reply

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 13 years ago

Not 'within' the 80 minutes. Until the 80 minutes ran out. Which means the rules apply the moment they were mentioned.

Again this is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. This is a fact.

reply

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 13 years ago

1) Firstly the clock starts only for them to find the answer before time runs out. The rules apply the moment they are mentioned.

2) Any questions is left unanswered, partly because of nervousness, but in truth because they shouldn't communicate with the invigilator.

3) They cannot know that is 'the question', even if they wanted to answer and held themselves back because of the rule, because only after they saw the question paper, they found that they had to find the question themselves.

Could be tricky for you guys to nail it all, but don't make any assumptions other than what is said in the movie and you'll crack it, and find that all supposed holes are tied. This is an intelligent movie. Don't assume the makers did not even think out the trivial questions you people ask.

reply

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

You are wrong.

url link to my thread, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197/board/thread/200230952

reply

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 11 years ago

I went through the thread. A few important conclusions you come to there are based on certain assumptions you make, that have no presence whatsoever in the movie.

Attention to what is said in the movie and considering 'only' what is said in the movie is the best way to go about. You might want to do that before you claim wrong out of others.

reply

[–] calbruin2 11 years ago

I attempted to use only the film content as text.

Cite examples and offer alternative interpretation.

Remember the debate is about (a) why is 'No' the correct answer and (b) what was "the question".

Reply.

reply

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 13 years ago

Well, well. Yet another person thinks he knows it all, but doesn't have a clue. Is there any where in the movie mentioned that the rules apply only during the 80 minutes? The rules apply from the time they were mentioned. The timeline is for finding the answer. Had anybody answered yes or no to the question "Any questions"(finding that is 'the question' or as a reflexive answer), they would have been walked out, and the rest would still never had guessed that was 'the question'.

The main aspect of this movie is, it closes all questions in the movie and ties down all supposed plot holes. Many overlook how it ties them down though. This assumption of rules applying only when the clock starts ticking is an example. One of the movie's messages is never to assume. See where did assumptions lead to in the movie? Lights and chemicals and the rest were so far away from the answer. That is why infer from only what you have been given.

That applies for those who watch this movie as well. Try to infer things from only what was said by the invigilator. Do not assume anything else and then complain about plot holes

reply

[–] stabiljka 12 years ago

"This assumption of rules applying only when the clock starts ticking is an example."

Yes, it is kind of rule that every exam has time and the rules which apply to the exam are communicated before the exam. Nobody asked any question because in this case the rules were few and pretty straitforward.

reply

[–] guitpik 13 years ago

This whole point is moot. They hadn't looked at the papers yet.

reply

[–] christopher-m-nilson-37-684660 13 years ago

The fact is that the guy states there will be only one question, and asks everyone right after if there were any questions. The whole fact is that it catches everyone off guard, because who would expect to be given the question and an answer right away, before even starting the test. The whole point of the test/question was to see who had the best powers of deduction and analysis.

reply

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

My thoughts, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197/board/thread/200230952

Show me the valid deductive reasoning that leads from a hidden, microscopic watermark imprint of 'Question 1' to thinking that "Any questions?" is The Question.

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 10 years ago

I disagree with the film-makers, but I suppose their logic is that question 1 is referring to the very first question asked, which is whether there are any questions?

reply

[–] calbruin2 10 years ago

For some reason, the original post to which was linked, is a deletion of my comment.

I re-posted under new thread.

I refer you to reading.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197/board/thread/242391790

reply

[–] linus-hirschi 9 years ago

"a special breed of person"

Meaning... the jews?

reply

[–] Jokke_DK 13 years ago

didnt even think about that.. good point..

The first 20 min is very exiting.. Then it all goes to crap!:P

People starts betraying eachother, shooting at eachother, torturing eachother and so on, because of a job.. COME ON! no job is that good..

And sure some people are psychos, but this was headhunted people, it was made clear was highly educated people(im not, so please don't correct my english :)").. So not so likely:P!
And they only were in the room for max 90 min the entire movie :)

And then on of the lame lame twist: "It was just fake bullets" .. and that should explain why they didn't react on any of the violence.. what about the guy who cut someone.. can't remember who, long time since I saw it.. why did they allow that?
And were they really expecting them starting shooting eachother, since they gave the guard a fake gun?

This movie is so ridiculus

reply

[–] the_first_prilt 13 years ago

The bullets weren't fake. They show that they have the cell regenerating pill inside.
Also, this takes place in a future where we have absolutely no idea what is happening outside of that room. Some pandemic is killing everyone infected with it unless they can afford the suppressants. This job, which they say is better any other job that you can ever get anywhere else, promises all the suppressants they would ever need, and possibly a cure.
Maybe that is worth killing for.

reply

[–] razaz03 13 years ago

No I'm with Jokke on this one, you're reading waaay too much into the film in an attempt to justify the absurd out of reality character decisions that these people made. It all got far too psycho far too quickly.

We don't know it's in the future, if anything it's in a different reality altogether.

Moreover if this reality existed the governments would not allow one pharmaceutical company to monopolise a cure/treatment to a major life-threatening pandemic (look to any serious condition anywhere in the world for proof)

Not to mention all the legal obstacles that can take this massive, massive corporation to it's knees (can anyone say torture assault battery and attempted murder?)

The applicants stood idly by whilst they assaulted, tortured, interrogated and attempted to murder one another within 80 minutes without so much of a raised eyebrow.

-Put 6 brits in a room and you might strike mild conversation to do with the weather.

6/10- good idea, far too pretentious and contrived to be intelligent for my liking, with a bad ending to boot.

reply

[–] amirrunoron 11 years ago

Moreover if this reality existed the governments would not allow one pharmaceutical company to monopolise a cure/treatment to a major life-threatening pandemic (look to any serious condition anywhere in the world for proof)

really have you heard of aids in africa?

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 10 years ago

Er... The governments do in fact seize the AID treatments for their own use. Jesus. At least read about things before commenting.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sigu828 13 years ago

yeah. stupid logic. stupid writer trying to show off as smartass.

reply

[–] nell-nell 13 years ago

The movie does make sense. even if we assume that the question "are there any questions" does not have anything to do with the exam, and that it is existential, the possible answers would remain either yes or no. it's not like the question is "are there any questions and what are they". It is a yes/ no question that accepts both answers. You cannot refute "no" as an answer because there are many trends of thought that do not consider existence a big bundle of unanswered questions. Accepting both answers reinforces the idea that the company does not seek a winner who either adopts a cartesian approach to existence or one who does not. Contestants'understanding of life is irrelevant to the job.

reply

[–] claudiahulagirl 12 years ago

This movie was rubbish. The "one question one answer" premise is mildly clever but otherwise, it is completely lacking in suspense and genuine tension. Instead, it is riddled with unrealistic reactions, exaggerated negative behaviour and overly narcissistic character traits that I do not believe would be displayed in the real world, no matter how good the job in question was. All round ridiculous and disappointing.

reply

[–] portkey 13 years ago

Actually, you're wrong. The question IS literal.

When Blonde discovers the writing on the paper, it says: "Question 1." AND NOTHING ELSE. That's the important part. There literally is NO QUESTION. The answer is - literally - "no", there are no questions.

reply

[–] usedblink 13 years ago

Something I realized. There is a period after Question 1, thus "Question 1." isn't a question, it is a statement. So yes, the answer to "Are there any questions?" is in fact NO.

reply

[–] DragonEmperorKho 13 years ago

Just because there isnt a question mark after 'Question 1.' it doesnt necessarily mean there is no question. most technical questions dont end with a question mark. (i.e, Question 1. Determine the speed the car is travelling.)

also if you'll notice the position of the words 'Question 1.' it's centered horizontally on the page. this implies that there is a possibility that the question could be on another entire different line. she only checked till the end of the line that 'Question 1.' is on.

on top of that, even if the only thing written on the whole sheet of paper is 'Question 1.'. The simple fact that the words 'Question 1.' exist, proves that there is in fact a question.

reply

[–] Torrible_2013 13 years ago

They are testing 2 things:

1) intellect
2) character

I don't think answering 'yes' or 'no' would matter. The key is in discovering what the question is. The 'tiny' question 1 is to reveal that there isn't any ACTUAL question ON the paper itself. That made BLONDE realise that the question had already been given earlier.

reply

[–] rollexx 13 years ago

He said "there is one question before you", and then he asked "Are there any questions?"

There are, of course, verbal examinations. An exam is supposed to test your abilities, and what they were looking for was attention to detail and character. Those qualities were displayed when she figured out what was the real question, and that she kept a level head throughout the entire process. So I guess she did pass the examination, albeit abstract.

reply

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

N.B. the sequence of "There is one question before you" comes before the actual asking of the supposed The Question, "Any questions?"

My thoughts, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197/board/thread/200230952

reply

[–] whitespirit26 13 years ago

OP, you're missing the point. Of course his inquiry about questions wasn't related to the exam, but the real question of the exam, and the whole procedure, WAS indeed whether there were actually any questions. And there weren't: it was all to see how they'd react and interact in the situation.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] calbruin2 13 years ago

The question makes direct reference to the test. The phrase "there is one question in front of each of you" is a reference to "question 1"

According to the movie, "Any questions?" is The Question, which is not understood until at the movie's end.

No one can point to any scene early in the movie where "Any Questions?" refers directly to the exam paper e.g. no eye glance, no finger pointing.
In other words, there is no explicit indication that "Any questions?" refers to the blank exam paper early in the movie.

Past experience, common sense, and context would suggest "Any questions?" was referring to the exam procedures outlined by the Invigilator.

Review the sequence in Invigilator's speech, there is the presumption that some question has been presented before the examinees already, but yet, The Question is asked after such declaration.

The answer to The Question depends, according to the movie, upon microscopic examination (by stealing some one's glasses and breaking room lights glass) of the exam paper i.e. "reference to the test" if you will, borrowing your words.

reply