When Stanford students go wild

A scene from "The Stanford Prison Experiment." Image courtesy IFC

The chaos and mayhem depicted in “The Stanford Prison Experiment” begin with the sounds of a typewriter writing a request for volunteers for what became an infamous experiment at Stanford University. It's a modest way to begin a film with such heavy moral and psychological complexities, yet it reflects how one small act built on good intentions can result in utter catastrophe captured beautifully in this engaging, frightening film.

Anyone who has taken Psych 101 in college – or even an AP psychology class in high school – has at least a passing familiarity with the titular experiment, in which 24 Stanford students pretend to be prisoners and guards in a mock prison. The purpose of the two-week experiment, conducted by Dr. Philip Zimbardo (Billy Crudup), is to study how and why prisoners are abused in the American prison system. Half of the students – Ezra Miller, Thomas Mann and Tye Sheridan among them – are thrown into unflattering sheets and locked up in the basement of a Stanford building, while the other dozen dress up as guards and given shifts to manage the prisoners. The second group operates under specific guidelines; they can't hit the inmates and can only punish them with jumping jack, push-ups and verbal abuse, among other regulations. Involvement in the project extends to Crudup his other researchers, including his girlfriend played by Olivia Thirlby, who act as prison officials and even serve on a parole board. As Crudup’s Zimbardo says before the experiment goes haywire, “We're trying to do something. We're trying to do something good.” 

Such an ominous phrase, although this Google image makes it sound so cute.

Going back to the memories of Psych 101, the experiment only lasted six days because the guards and prisoners both got a little too into their respective roles. As “Stanford Prison Experiment” shows, the incarcerated students lose their grip on the reality of the situation and the watchers break the rules and dive headfirst into unadulterated sadism as Crudup watches the proceedings from afar.

It really doesn't take that long for the faux prison society to breakdown – a major rule is violated on the first day – and where “Stanford Prison Experiment” excels is depicting how easily things begin to fall apart. It's an intense situation depicted brilliantly by director Kyle Patrick Alvarez, who uses the claustrophobic environment of the mock prison as a means of forging unrelenting intensity every time the action shifts back to the holding area. The film revels in minimalism, using the main set in the Stanford basement to nurture fear and worry for the 12 imprisoned students, as well as the audience watching them lose their mind and place. Then again, the audience is much more like Crudup's Zimbardo in this situation, with the film working as a vessel of voyeurism to watch humanity resort back to its worst nature and practices. Any disgust for the horrible circumstances the student guards put their classmates through is hidden behind the experiment's inherent thrill; like watching a car wreck, a person can't quite look away and get a little enthralled by the carnage.

Just looking at images online is addicting.

The feeling is particularly true with the people involved in the experiment, a point Alvarez and writer Tim Talbott bring up to match up with one of the more prominent points of the prison experience. These are still Stanford University students, erudite kids who are often among the top of their class in their respective high schools and have a reputation (possibly unearned) for civility akin to the one found at an Ivy League campus. The theory is they're capable of much better behavior than the incarcerated and the guards – the education level is higher, and the hints of subtle racism tied to that thought exacerbate the image – but, as the filmmakers emphasize, human depravity isn't unique to the people classified within the lower end of the societal scale.

This analysis feels more like an academic paper than a proper review or critique because of the subject matter, but “Stanford Prison Experiment” wouldn't succeed without the uniformly terrific performances from the students, guards, researchers and especially Crudup, whose performance captures the axiom of what, exactly, paves the road to hell. Even with the superb directing and strong script, the intensity brought by those prisoners and guards is unparalleled and pretty much perfect.

The result of their efforts is a chilling film, a dramatic recreation with a few elements of horror and a discomfiting vibe. Like the participants in the experiment, audiences won't leave a screening of “The Stanford Prison Experiment” the same as they entered.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 122 minutes

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Psychology majors.

Take the whole family?: The “R” rating is a little strong and very unnecessary; this is more than fine for high school students taking an AP psychology course.

Theater or Netflix?: Worth a theater viewing if you can find it, but you might be stuck streaming it from somewhere.

Any nits worth picking?:  One area I wish the filmmakers had hit on was whether or not the breakdown was caused in part by the violation of the rules of the game. Essentially, did the prisoners' mental collapse come from the imprisonment and actions of the guards, or was the fact that the rules were broken cause the problems. It's an interesting point, and, again, one I wish had been touched upon in more depth.

Watch this as well?: I recommended this one a bit ago, but “Bronson” is another film that analyzes the effects imprisonment has on people. I'll also add in “Brubaker” and “American History X” as other prison movies with similar vibes of hopelessness.

                               A little bit from "Brubaker," which is just terrific.