Effetto Lucifero

I've always been fascinated by the original Stanford prison experiment. It always had the ingredients for a fascinating study of human behaviour. Its conductor Dr. Philip Zimbardo knew that, it just had to be played out. Of course, The Stanford Prison Experiment is a story that's been notably portrayed before, such as the 2001 German film Das Experiment. I remember being a fan of it when I first saw it, but I admit I can't quite recall it enough to make a comparison here. Nevertheless, this American version which doesn't make substitutions is a preferable version, one that makes resourceful use of today's technology and young talent. There's a dual study going on here. One, the part that writes itself, a document of the actual experiment. And the other, an examination of the ethics of the experimenters. Here is the ugly side of the human condition and our desires to push one another to feel the sweet taste of superiority.

While it may lend the obvious yet compelling results of what imaginary power and authority does to people, it still needs to be well executed to work. Fortunately director Kyle Patrick Alvarez and writer Tim Talbott have the right handling of the material, working with great economy in balancing its dichotomy's. At first it's disarmingly casual in the way the volunteers are selected and summoned, making a point of its randomizations and often offering an endearing and natural sense of humour. While superficially bleak, it's having fun with the 70s clothes and oversized moustaches, without peeling back their integrity. But then real tension, real anguish, and a real sensation of danger and dread creeps in and The Stanford Prison Experiment becomes deeply unsettling in its dehumanization techniques. With a careful sense from Alvarez of how far to escalate each sequence, it rings true to human sensibilities of what would happen in this unique situation. There's always a reminder that it isn't real, but it doesn't stop you from feeling unbearably trapped. This is nature at work, combined with a touch of modern cruelty.

There is a tendency in the film's inherent and forgivably episodic narrative that it gets you attached to a character they're focusing on only due to their upcoming exit. Thereby the film loses steam bit by bit. It gradually wins you back afterwards, but each time it takes a little longer. Ezra Miller in particular is a highlight of the first half of the film, formulating some of the most memorable instances of the prisoner's rebellions and reluctances. He's missed, but his absence only breeds more tension and vulnerability as we're left with weaker willed volunteers. If anything, this film is an impressive display of the best talent from the next generation of actors. Hopefully all to soon be familiar faces; Johnny Simmons, Tye Sheridan, Brett Davern, and a guard with the most inventive choice of wording, Michael Angarano, all stick out among other strong performances. While a crowded ensemble does mean no character gets to be fleshed out to their full potential, Alvarez and Talbott at least give room for everyone a time to shine without any dim spots.

On the experimenters end, Billy Crudup is perfect casting as Dr. Zimbardo. Donning a beard that gives him an uncanny resemblance to Satan, it doesn't remove that trustworthy glint of compassion in his eyes. His usual warmth is countered by his malicious intent to shove the volunteers to their limits and it creates an enthralling inner conflict where he's finding his own limits. The film admittedly does lack a female presence giving the nature of 24 volunteers and all the scientists being men. Its only example is Olivia Thirlby as Zimbardo's girlfriend who later involves herself in the experiment and becomes a voice of reason, but a very welcome one. It may have blind spots and a few stumbles, but it doesn't hinder what the film does right. As I was completely wrapped in its deft and dense confrontations, I kept waiting for the film to explode. Perhaps recalling the more gritty approach Das Experiment took to its second half, instead this implodes, which is a much more restrained and satisfying conclusion to watch these invisible social constructs dissolve rather than erupt.

The Stanford Prison Experiment's wealth of strong material and performances are matched by its technical ambitions. The slick photography makes it cinematic with liberal collages of close-ups and swift camera moves but still keeping it intimate. When the scene calls for rigid obedience, any time the camera moves out of line we hold our breath. It's graded with a washed-out atmosphere, relishing in the moody darkness. I've been irritated with indie films that abuse a shallow depth of field in their photography for no good reason, but this film uses it to isolate you in its grasp and as a result the film shook me up for the rest of the day. While it gets under the skin of the prisoners and the scientists, I did find myself wanting to get behind the motivations of the guards, the most vocal contributors of the experiment. Instead, thats saved for an epilogue that feels like a wise afterthought, but it's a powerful note on the personal experiments we run just because the opportunity is there. The Stanford Prison Experiment is an ideal taut psychological thriller that bristles with youthful energy and will mostly likely remain standing as one of the best of the year.

8/10

"Would you rather be a prison guard or a prisoner?" That question was put to young college men who answered a newspaper ad in "The Stanford Prison Experiment" (R, 2:02). The movie is based on a real-life psychology department study conducted at California's Stanford University in August 1971. After being screened using a questionnaire and an interview, 24 students were chosen as paid participants in the 14-day experiment (each making $15 per day). In spite of the above question being asked of all applicants, participants were assigned as either guards or prisoners by coin flips. Faculty offices in the basement of the university's psychology building were transformed into a mock prison wing. Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the psychology professor who led a team of graduate students and advisors in conducting the experiment, wanted to test the theory that conflicts between guards and inmates are caused by the men's individual personality traits. A documentary about the experiment was released in 1992 and a German film loosely based on the experiment came out in 2001, followed by an American remake in 2010, but this is the first feature film which attempts to dramatize the actual events that took place.

As we see Zimbardo (Billy Crudup) going through his selection process, we meet his team (James Wolk, Keir Gilchrist and Gaius Charles) and the student participants (including "prisoners" Ezra Miller, Tye Sheridan and Thomas Mann, along with Michael Angarano as a "guard" who based his authoritative persona on a sadistic captain in the movie "Cool Hand Luke"). The guards are briefed and given generic uniforms. The prisoners are "arrested" by actual local police officers and sent to the "prison" to "await trial". The guards process the prisoners, give them uniforms (crude smocks and stocking caps) and taught to only identify themselves by their prisoner number and to address all guards as "Mr. Correctional Officer". The guards initially perform their duties tentatively while there's a lot of eye-rolling by the prisoners. Then something happens.

Both the guards and the prisoners quickly adapt to their roles to a surprising degree and even internalize them. The guards become increasingly menacing and sadistic. The prisoners' actions vary, but all are in character as some comply while others resist the guards' authority and talk of escape and some are even pushed to their psychological limits. Zimbardo and his team watch and listen to all the goings-on via closed-circuit camera and hidden microphones. Even when the guards violate the rules they've been given and the experiment seems close to getting out of hand, Zimbardo repeatedly forbids his team from intervening. A former San Quentin inmate (Nelson Ellis) joins the team as an adviser and gets involved more than he's comfortable with. An actual priest (Albert Malafronte) speaks with each of the prisoners and the team even holds a mock parole board. When Zimbardo's girlfriend (Olivia Thirlby) stops by and observes parts of the experiment, she criticizes Zimbardo's methods and expresses concern for the well-being of the prisoners. The professor insists that his experiment could bring out positive change in prisons everywhere and wants to continue, convinced that he can keep things under control.

"The Stanford Prison Experiment" is a compelling dramatization that really sneaks up on you. Just when you're tempted to write off what you're seeing as a ridiculous exercise, you start to see what the professor sees – the remarkable transformation in the student participants from role-players to young men living and, in the case of the guards, actually relishing their roles. We also see what Zimbardo can't see – that he and his team are becoming part of the experiment themselves. The cast includes few, if any recognizable actors, but there is no weak link in this chain of performances and Crudup is particularly outstanding. Tim Talbot's script and the film's look realistically evoke the spirit of the early 70s, while the score and the cinematography are both creative and effective at drawing us into the film's narrative. Little-known director Kyle Patrick Alvarez does a great job of pulling these elements together.

Dr. Zimbardo's experiment made him an in-demand expert on the psychology of authority and on inmate-prison guard relations. He testified before Congress after major prison riots at San Quentin and Attica shortly after his experiment took place. After he noticed striking similarities between the results of his experiment and the abuse of prisoners at the hands of American soldiers in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in 2004, Zimbardo wrote a book discussing that connection. He has also lectured on his findings to audiences all over the world. None of this should be surprising to anyone who sees "The Stanford Prison Experiment". It's a dramatic depiction of a landmark psychology experiment and a startling window into human nature. It also happens to be a fascinating and entertaining film. "A-"

I have to admit that my rating is conflicted between the quality of the film (the caliber of the acting and directing), and the enjoyment/watchability of the film itself. It was superbly acted and directed - exhibited by the fact that recognizable actors blended seamlessly with their characters and eliciting sincere feelings of contempt and sympathy. However, it was not an easy film to watch. Again, I think that's a testament to the talent of the artists involved.

I do think it should be required viewing for psychology students - unfortunately this film was released after my college years.

As another reviewer stated, I really would have liked to have seen more about the final repercussions: how it affected the participants once the study was over (one would imagine some could have been left with PTSD, if only short term). In fact the film was so immersive and believable that I wondered if any of the actors fell victim to the same tendencies as the original participants and got a little lost in their roles.

I had to go online to see if there were any legal or professional repercussions for Dr. Philip Zimbardo or any of the other parties involved. The post-notes at the end of the film could have been a bit more comprehensive, as I believe there were certain practices/rules put in place for psychological studies as a direct result of this experiment (among them being the establishment of the National Research Act as well as the creation of the Institutional Review Board).

So, yes, I would definitely recommend watching this movie with the caveat that you're not going to be left feeling upbeat or warm and fuzzy.

This was horrifying. Definitely not for everyone. Most horrifying thing is that this really happened. I don't even know where to start.

The movie is well made and told. It's really claustrophobic and it will get under your skin. How horrible humans can be. There's no violence here, but the verbal abuse and the way people are treated and at the same time being watched by people who could have stopped it, is what makes this story the more haunting.

The actors do a good job here. Those guards, man. This movie is gonna make you hate them and feel very sorry for the prisoners. It's all acting, but you really get a grudge against those guards. So, the movie did a good job on that. It gets you invested, but it at the end leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Nothing feel good about it. One thing it lacks is a main character. The first half is centered on Ezra Miller, but he disappears halfway through. I think it lost something when he was gone.

It's a though one to watch and I don't think I need to watch it again. No, once was good enough. Maybe it can do good and remind you of the cruelty of us humans, and help stop these things from happening. But, it's not an experience for everyone like I said and the cruelty is almost overboard at times and a little over the top. I think it was trying to chock people too much.

Horrifying, but well made and acted. It dwells too long on some of the most cruel moments and it's gonna make it hard to watch. So, don't go in for a casual watch. You gotta be prepared to watch it

This movie is one of the most shocking things I've seen and it's all because it's a true story of a so called scientist that has lost his humane side and enjoyed conducting a psychologically damaging experiment. The lack of control on the guards shows that Dr.Philip was fascinated by the horror and cruelty human kind can create even in a simulation. The fact that he chose an ex-prisoner as a consultant shows that this experiment lacks all credibility because the ex-prisoner wanted to subject his negative experience on innocent students. A chilling movie until the last seconds!!!!