Sudance.org is dispatching its writers to daily screenings and events to capture the 10 days of festivities during the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. Check back each morning for roundups from the previous days events. The Stanford Prison Experiment by Nate von Zumwalt
Kyle Patrick Alvarez may not be the second coming of Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the groundbreaking psychologist at the helm of the Stanford Prison Experiment, but that doesn't preclude his new film from playing like a microcosm of those chilling events. One could speculate that every film screening is an experiment of sorts, as a number of audience members intimated during The Stanford Prison Experiment's Q&A session, but Alvarez is loath to concede that his film manipulates with the same scheming tendencies as the experiment itself.
About that experiment (which Alvarez worked pedantically to adhere to in the film, even going so far as to enlist Zimbardo as a consultant). In the summer of 1971, Zimbardo (played by Billy Crudup in the film) conceived a project that would simulate the conditions of a prison by soliciting 24 exceedingly normal men to play the roles of guards and prisoners. Assigned at random, the participants inhabit their roles on a 24/7 basis and under the analytical surveillance of Zimbardo and his team. With only a basic and albeit ambiguous condition that the guards may not physically assault the prisoners, the experiment develops with an escalating dubiousness as a number of guards adopt a nearly fascistic attitude that is perpetuated by unruly behavior from the prisoners most notably an increasingly unstable Ezra Miller. Just as the guards begin to revel in their newly instituted authority, the prisoners find that the ostensible experiment is more closely aligned with reality than simulation. Not even two days into the project, Miller's character begins to break down after a protracted stint in the hole,' a room for solitary confinement from which he implores for a release while proclaiming that the experiment is not allowed to fuck with my head. As the project takes on a life of its own, Zimbardo and his team are forced to reconcile the potential benefits of their research with the traumatic repercussions for its subjects.
Dr. Philip Zimbardo at the premire of The Stanford Prison
Experiment. Sundance Institute | Stephen Speckman It would be facile to call The Stanford Prison Experiment a challenging' film that designation should be reserved for the emotionally gripping experiment itself. But there is a tinge of a test (despite the director's belief otherwise) in Alvarez's dedication to veracity, which does not play as a fault in this case. We really were careful to make sure the movie didn't hit too hard too fast so that hopefully it wouldn't become a test. I wanted to make sure that it always felt accessible as opposed to the movie being a constant endurance test for the audience.
Perhaps more notable than the film's stellar direction and Alvarez's deftness in working with the confines of the true story is the way the film is entirely hands-off in dealing with the moral ambiguity of the experiment. That fueled Alvarez's inclination to remind the audience that, ultimately and arguably, nothing truly horrific happened. One of the things that I found really fascinating about the experiment was that they walked away they ended it, said Alvarez. It was ultimately more an expression of humanity than it was of how bad humanity is.
Zimbardo himself, who was in attendance for the screening but did not take the stage during the Q&A, spoke with a similar sentiment. What's not in the film is that when the study was ended, we spent a full day in psychological debriefing, he said. We spent hours with all the prisoners, hours with all the guards, and then we brought the prisoners and guards together. And we literally called it moral reeducation.' I was able to say, all of us did bad things, including me. Aside from the guards that did bad things, the good guards never once interfered to prevent the bad guards from doing what they did. The prisoners who didn't break down, never gave support to the fellow prisoners that did break down.
For Alvarez, he hopes that audiences can glean the significance of the story. I think what's important is to acknowledge that it's still incredibly relevant today in terms of how we're given authority and what that authority means. And i think it's really important to note that a lot of people involved in this experiment, Dr. Zimbardo and many of the grad students, went on to participate in prison reform.
Results by Jeremy Kinser
Andrew Bujalski returns to Sundance with Results, a perceptive comedy set in the world of fitness trainers that examines the relationship between money and happiness.The movie premiered at the Eccles in the U.S. Dramatic Competition, and it's not only his most accessible project to date, it also marks his first foray into directing professional actors.
Newly-rich, recently-divorced, perpetually schlubby Danny (Kevin Corrigan) decides to change his life by visiting a local gym, but unwittingly and inextricably becomes entangled in the low-simmering romance between fitness guru Trevor (Guy Pearce) and trainer Kat (Cobie Smulders). During the Q&A that followed the screening, Bujalski, who will likely forever be known as the Godfather of Mumblecore, seemed as surprised as anyone to have made such a mainstream romantic comedy.
Cobie Smulders, Festival Director John Cooper, and
Brooklyn Decker. Sundance Institute | Stephen
Speckman He said while attending the festival two years ago he was pressured to come up with a new project to pitch. After directing four movies with non-professional actors, he decided to break out of his comfort zone and
