ComplianceIn 1961, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments designed to measure the willingness of subjects to obey an order that they found offensive or distasteful upon the basis that it was acceptable, having been issued by someone in the position of authority. The results showed that the majority of people will comply with orders like these not so much out of fear, but that their sense of morality is displaced as they are freed from agency in the decision-making process. And it is upon this basis that a criminal was able to coerce events into the virtually implausible scenario which serves as the basis for Compliance.
|
|
The story of Compliance originated from a sensational news story, but one which was nonetheless an actual crime, about a young employee at a McDonald's in Mount Washington, Kentucky who experienced virtually the same scenario depicted in the film that Becky (Dreama Walker) is forced to endure. What begins as a phone call by an individual identifying himself to the manager of a "ChickWich" restaurant, Sandra (Ann Dowd), as "Officer Daniels" (Pat Healy), a member of the local police investigating Becky's alleged theft of a customer's money turns into a series of escalating humiliations. How could something like this happen? It's the kind of story which boggles the mind to consider that normal, rational people would allow themselves to be swayed by a disembodied voice on a phone, telling them to do things...and then the victims complying with the request, under the presumption that they are obeying the law. But it did happen; and not just in Mount Washington, but all over the country, and not just by one sick individual operating alone. The truth is that even though this tragedy was a strange event, its inception has to do with the performers of the acts and their (as the title puts it) compliance. There are certain established cultural mores which are a part of how we operate in society. Have you ever been pulled over for a speeding ticket? Well, I may curse and howl when they're out of earshot, knowing I'm about to find myself two hundred dollars poorer, but when they shine that flashlight, and the blaring lights are reflected in my rearview mirror, I fish out my insurance card and license faster than you can say, "yes, sir, thank you, officer". There is a certain level of humiliation intrinsic in customer service--speaking from experience--accentuated by ridiculous outfits, a staff generally comprised of impressionable youth, and a hierarchy of bureaucratic, middle management, desperate to cling to their jobs; it is a ground prime for coercion by authority figures. From the start, there is an undercurrent boss/employee animosity between Sandra and Becky--not uncommon for any job, though--such as is evidenced when Sandra awkwardly tries to interject into Becky's "boy talk" with Sandra's shift supervisor, Marti (Ashlie Atkinson). But would that this and the "freezer incident" about considerable shrinkage of bacon were the only drama at this local ChickWich branch in Ohio, it might be any other day in the Midwest; that was before Sandra took the call from "Officer Daniels", later revealed to be a middle-aged fellow from who-knows-where, making the calls from the comfort of his home on a burner phone with calling cards.
Officer Daniels is a manipulative force, seizing on truths of phone call interactions and coercing his audience, utilizing carefully phrased litigious diction and tone to establish himself as a police officer. So when Daniels tells Sandra that Becky stole money, Sandra doesn't doubt him; rather, after some degree of praise for her compliance, she becomes the agent of his interests, convincing her staff (most of them) and recruiting her fiance, Evan (Bill Camp), to participate in the degrading display of keeping watch over the strip-searched Becky, covered with no more than an apron. Daniels is especially successful at exploiting Sandra's ingrained dedication to serve, a condition grilled into her from no doubt years of service; this approach is less successful on those less invested in complying, such as Kevin (Philip Ettinger), who rightly observes that the situation is unorthodox, but is in turn scolded by Sandra for failing to cooperate in the "investigation". One of the most clever and subversive elements of Compliance is how it makes viewers also complicit in the events. I found myself analyzing Daniels' dialogue, finding moments or key weaknesses in his word choice which should have been giveaways for Sandra or others as to his scheme, wondering just how far it would go. As a disembodied voice on a phone, it is easier for Daniels' victims to assume he is actually a cop; it's not as though they can see in his body language or appearance that he doesn't look like a cop. But why should that have anything to do with someone reaching that conclusion? After all, if someone were convincing enough on the phone, why shouldn't someone no doubt stricken with fear of interfering with police work not cooperate with the law, since impersonating a police officer is, in fact, a crime? Well, it's those limits of reasonable action which end up on trial here, and that agency which we subconsciously allow ourselves to be free from, to allow others to claim responsibility--no accountability. So when people have observed that the characters in Compliance must be "really stupid", I consider this an unfair claim, because fear and the subconscious need for acceptance and security can make people do illogical things. There are several establishing shots of the ChickWich interior, of customers enjoying their meals. There isn't anything plot-oriented happening in these moments, but that's the point; it creates for the viewer a sense of unease that, at any point, if you and your loved ones were at a fast food restaurant, having dinner, that something like the events of Compliance could be taking place in the stock room not twenty feet away. By the end of the protracted episode, Sandra seems to have absorbed the presence of Daniels on the phone as merely another element of her busy Friday night, already accepting that there is a naked cashier in her stock room as though it were a hiccup in the evening, just another staffing issue. Is Sandra evil? She is more accepting of discarding her agency of Becky's fate than others are, but she seems to be as though she were in a daze--as an interviewer describes her: brainwashed. But I believe that the brainwashing was not a result of Daniels' influence, but of consumerism and the behaviors molded around it and those who espouse it. It's not so bad wearing an ugly uniform, is it? Or answering the phone with a scripted response...or wearing a stupid elf hat during the holidays? Because if you've already come this far, why not go further? After all, you wouldn't want to get into trouble, would you?
Recommended for: Fans of a cynical critique of consumerism and the ease by which we are conditioned to roll over and submit to those who present themselves as authority figures. It is a sharp, uncomfortable thriller, made more so by the accuracy in its recreation of true events.
Officer Daniels is a manipulative force, seizing on truths of phone call interactions and coercing his audience, utilizing carefully phrased litigious diction and tone to establish himself as a police officer. So when Daniels tells Sandra that Becky stole money, Sandra doesn't doubt him; rather, after some degree of praise for her compliance, she becomes the agent of his interests, convincing her staff (most of them) and recruiting her fiance, Evan (Bill Camp), to participate in the degrading display of keeping watch over the strip-searched Becky, covered with no more than an apron. Daniels is especially successful at exploiting Sandra's ingrained dedication to serve, a condition grilled into her from no doubt years of service; this approach is less successful on those less invested in complying, such as Kevin (Philip Ettinger), who rightly observes that the situation is unorthodox, but is in turn scolded by Sandra for failing to cooperate in the "investigation". One of the most clever and subversive elements of Compliance is how it makes viewers also complicit in the events. I found myself analyzing Daniels' dialogue, finding moments or key weaknesses in his word choice which should have been giveaways for Sandra or others as to his scheme, wondering just how far it would go. As a disembodied voice on a phone, it is easier for Daniels' victims to assume he is actually a cop; it's not as though they can see in his body language or appearance that he doesn't look like a cop. But why should that have anything to do with someone reaching that conclusion? After all, if someone were convincing enough on the phone, why shouldn't someone no doubt stricken with fear of interfering with police work not cooperate with the law, since impersonating a police officer is, in fact, a crime? Well, it's those limits of reasonable action which end up on trial here, and that agency which we subconsciously allow ourselves to be free from, to allow others to claim responsibility--no accountability. So when people have observed that the characters in Compliance must be "really stupid", I consider this an unfair claim, because fear and the subconscious need for acceptance and security can make people do illogical things. There are several establishing shots of the ChickWich interior, of customers enjoying their meals. There isn't anything plot-oriented happening in these moments, but that's the point; it creates for the viewer a sense of unease that, at any point, if you and your loved ones were at a fast food restaurant, having dinner, that something like the events of Compliance could be taking place in the stock room not twenty feet away. By the end of the protracted episode, Sandra seems to have absorbed the presence of Daniels on the phone as merely another element of her busy Friday night, already accepting that there is a naked cashier in her stock room as though it were a hiccup in the evening, just another staffing issue. Is Sandra evil? She is more accepting of discarding her agency of Becky's fate than others are, but she seems to be as though she were in a daze--as an interviewer describes her: brainwashed. But I believe that the brainwashing was not a result of Daniels' influence, but of consumerism and the behaviors molded around it and those who espouse it. It's not so bad wearing an ugly uniform, is it? Or answering the phone with a scripted response...or wearing a stupid elf hat during the holidays? Because if you've already come this far, why not go further? After all, you wouldn't want to get into trouble, would you?
Recommended for: Fans of a cynical critique of consumerism and the ease by which we are conditioned to roll over and submit to those who present themselves as authority figures. It is a sharp, uncomfortable thriller, made more so by the accuracy in its recreation of true events.