Kyle Patrick Alverez’s alarming, uncomfortable “The Stanford Prison Experiment” is about the psychology behind the abuse of power: What kinds of situations make seemingly normal people turn cruel? It’s also a fascinating portrait of an obsessed, egotistical professor who’s determined to see his experiment through until the end. Additionally, the movie forces you to step into the shoes of the characters and think about what you would do in their situation.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted from Aug. 14 to Aug. 21, 1971, in the cramped, windowless basement of Stanford University’s psychology building. The goal of the study was to test the effects of prison on an individual. It took less than 48 hours for test subjects to assimilate into their dominant or submissive roles. The mock guards began inflicting psychological torture and humiliation — making them do continuous push-ups and jumping jacks, recite their prison number again and again, taking their beds away, making them go to the bathroom in metal buckets, tying them up, etc.
It’s disturbing how much a brown uniform, a pair of sunglasses and a nightstick can empower someone. It’s even more disturbing to see the pleasure and glee some of the “guards” take in humiliating their prisoners.
In the movie, the meanest one (Michael Angarano) adopts a phony Southern accent, imitating the sadistic prison captain Strother Martin from “Cool Hand Luke.” On the other side of the coin, we witness mock prisoner Daniel (Ezra Miller) have a complete mental breakdown: Within two days, he goes from cocky and loud-mouthed, not taking the experiment very seriously, to a hysterical and frightened wreck.
“The Stanford Prison Experiment” is intense and unsettling. Through a minimal, unassuming docudrama style, Alverez establishes an unnerving sense of heightened realism. He makes good use of the cramped “prison” setting, making an already-stressful watching experience more stressful and claustrophobic. Cinematographer Jas Shelton often employs tracking shots, taking us up and down the hallway, imitating the action of one frantically pacing back and forth. While watching, the picture hits you on a visceral level; you feel angry at the actions taking place on screen.
And, yet, when the credits role, the movie forces you to think logically about the situation. Similar to “Compliance” and “The Hunt,” “The Stanford Prison Experiment” evokes such a strong initial reaction, but then it forces you to examine it more closely.
A bevy of talented young actors mostly seen in independent projects portray the test subjects — Miller, Tye Sheridan, Johnny Simmons and Thomas Mann, among others — who all give authentic performances, even if their characters remain somewhat underdeveloped.
Crudup, however, is the standout, delivering an obsessive, unsympathetic, slightly sociopathic performance that really digs deep into the character’s psyche. The study ends up taking Zimbardo to some dark places. He’s become so involved in the experiment that he demonstrates a disregard for his subjects. By the end of the film, it’s just him, watching the action unfold on a video monitor from another room.
“The Stanford Prison” is an engrossing psychological drama — a movie capable of conjuring up a dual response is nothing short of successful.
(Rated R for language, including abusive behavior and some sexual references.)