Films at Sundance 2015 Feature Research Controversies

The Stanford Prison Experiment, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, was awarded the 2015 Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize for science-themed productions at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. The story, based on events that took place at Stanford University during the summer break of 1971, follows Professor Philip Zimbardo as he created what became one of the most shocking and famous social experiments of all time. It is hard to get through a basic psychology course without encountering the ethical and moral questions raised about human subjects research in Zimbardo’s military-funded project, which focused on how students react when assigned roles as “prison guards” and “prisoners.” A jury of film and science professionals presented the award to the film for its “unflinching portrayal of an ambitious though flawed social science experiment in the psychology of imprisonment, and for its wrenching depiction of the human capacity for evil.” The award criteria require either focusing on science or technology as a theme or depicting a scientist, an engineer, or a mathematician as a major character in a feature film. For me, the best part of revisiting this disturbing chapter in the history of psychological research is that the actor Billy Crudup, who plays the lead—Dr. Zimbardo—looks much like the devil himself. The film also won the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award.

Not receiving the award but certainly reflecting a similar science focus was another retelling of an actual controversial experiment in psychology. Experimenter is based on the work of the famed social psychologist Stanley Milgram, who in 1961 conducted a series of radical behavioral experiments to gauge ordinary people’s willingness to follow instructions by asking them to use escalating electric shocks as punishment for incorrect test responses. (In truth the “shocks” were faked.) The film is a bio-drama following Dr. Milgram through his controversial experiments, the resulting public outcry, his denial of tenure at Yale, his subsequent move to the City University of New York, and his troubled professional and personal life. Again, although Milgram’s motives—to attempt to understand the events of the Nazi Holocaust experience—were viable, the treatment of human subjects raised serious moral and ethical concerns. Writer/director Michael Almereyda with the stars Peter Sarsgaard as Milgram and Winona Ryder as his wife create a wrenching tale. Clearly, social science experimental research ethics were in dire need of attention during the 1960s and 1970s. These two 2015 Sundance indie films are a refresher course for new generations.

The only other film considered by the Sloan jury was Z for Zachariah, a postapocalyptic story shot in beautiful New Zealand. An isolated mountain site has allowed three characters to survive a radiated planet. More romance/thriller than scientific in focus, the film features an engineer as an essential player in assuring survival in a world without electric power. That the surviving female is a farmer is also a primary factor in the trio’s survival—and her presence enhances prospects for future population recovery. She’s admirable—the two men not so much. The artful simplicity of the film’s story and the breathtaking scenery are worthwhile.

While not considered for the science award by the Sloan jurors, my personal favorite Sundance science film for 2015 is the U.S. drama Advantageous. (The film won a special jury award for collaborative vision.) Director Jennifer Phang depicts a near-future city where soaring opulence overshadows economic hardship and gender issues have become paramount. A single mother, who has risen to the top echelon of a major cosmetic company, is ready to do all she can to hold on to her goals for her daughter’s continuing, very expensive education and place in a changing society. The instability surfacing in their world creates a feminist’s nightmare: The powers-that-be determine that it’s better to have unemployed women—sending them back into the home—rather than risking too many unemployed men. For the business world, the “face” of a successful company should reflect the new “ideal”: young, beautiful, Caucasian. To save her high-salaried position and assure her daughter’s future, the mother—a brilliant but not-so-youthful Asian—agrees to become a subject in a still-experimental project involving “host bodies” and “replanting” of brain contents. It is not clear where these young, attractive host bodies are coming from or whether the subject’s full mental abilities will transfer. This is not really a brand of cloning story so much as a frightening take on the continuing surgical “improvements” being marketed to women. No spoiler alert needed. With science in the hands of marketing by profit-motivated industry, serious moral and ethical concerns are raised, creating yet another not-so-shiny image for science.

Movies, whether appearing on big or small screens, strive to share stories with audiences. Distribution may be less challenging than in the past, but many of the tools of the storytellers’ trade seem unchanged. Mainstream film is shrinking while opportunities on television and online are increasing, The Sundance Institute founder, actor/director Robert Redford, told an opening press gathering, “I’m only interested in the fact that stories get told. There’s an attack on freedom of expression everywhere.” Surprisingly, this past year even Hollywood brought science to audiences in blockbuster, award-winning films: Interstellar, The Theory of Everything, and The Imitation Game. Whether accurate science was communicated may be debatable, although scientists were involved in each project. Perhaps science has finally become attractive to both studio and indie filmmakers, as long as the story is controversial and arousing. I can’t wait for someone to film the Hedy Lamarr story.

Go to sundance.org for information on all of this year’s Sundance films.