Compliance (film)
| Movie | |
|---|---|
| German title | Compliance |
| Original title | Compliance |
| Country of production | United States |
| original language | English |
| Publishing year | 2012 |
| length | 90 minutes |
| Age rating | FSK 12 |
| Rod | |
| Director | Craig Sable |
| script | Craig Sable |
| production | Craig Sable |
| music | Heather McIntosh |
| camera | Adam Stone |
| cut | Jane Rizzo |
| occupation | |
| |
Compliance is a 2012 American thriller directed by Craig Zobel, who also wrote the script. The film premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival .
action
Restaurant manager Sandra didn't get off to a good start to the normally hectic Friday. The cold room of her ChickWich fast food restaurant wasn't properly locked; Ingredients in value of around 1,500 US dollars are corrupt, and the bacon is probably not for all Burger rich. Finally, a regional manager announces himself to be checked.
Sandra and her deputy keep control of the restaurant when the restaurant manager receives a phone call. The man on the other side of the line introduces himself as Officer Daniels and asks Sandra for help. He had a customer who claimed that a young employee had stolen from her at the counter. Since the police are bound in other actions, he needs Sandra's support. The vague description of the perpetrator given by the caller immediately leads Sandra to Becky. Sandra provides the name and description, the caller immediately confirms that it matches the victim's information. The caller asks Sandra to hold Becky until the police arrive. Sandra still takes Becky under protection, albeit hesitantly.
Becky rejects the allegations from the start. The caller asks Sandra to do a body search on Becky. The restaurant manager gets scruples , but the caller convinces with the authority of the character "Officer Daniels" Sandra and at the same time releases her from all responsibility: no matter what he demands - he alone bears the full responsibility, not her. Sandra Becky then searches thoroughly for the loot, also in the hope of being able to calm down quickly and deal with the problems in the restaurant. So she builds up additional pressure on Becky when she refuses to undress completely in order to also examine the underwear for the booty. However, nothing is found.
Sandra leaves Becky alone in the room so that the caller can put pressure on the young employee: he claims that her apartment is being searched and that her only alternative to this type of detention and search in Sandra's office is prison. Through questioning and psychological conversation techniques, the caller learns that Becky's brother was already in conflict with the law over drug possession. The caller used this information to instruct Sandra immediately after she got back on the phone to put all Becky's clothes in a plastic bag on the passenger seat of her car so that the police can examine the clothes for drug traces.
Sandra now insists on concentrating on her restaurant again. The caller reluctantly gives in, but demands that Becky be provided with a male employee for security reasons and to prevent a possible escape. Kevin, who has a good, almost enamored relationship with Becky, is charged with guarding the place. But Kevin soon questions the caller's instructions and refuses to follow them. Kevin leaves the office where Becky is being held and shares his concern with Sandra.
Sandra sees no other option than to ask her fiancé Van to come into the restaurant and watch Becky. He too asks the caller's instructions first, but the hint that the caller is solely responsible, the authority of the character "Officer Daniels" and the reference to Van's beer consumption before the trip to the restaurant let Sandra's fiancé relent. Van does a body search on Becky, searches all of her orifices. Becky protests, but is physically punished for it. Without depicting her, the plot suggests that Van Becky is sexually abusing here.
Gripped by guilt, Van leaves the office and restaurant without explanation. Harold, who works as a caretaker in the restaurant, is asked by Sandra to take care of Becky. The caller cannot deceive him. Outraged, Harold refuses to follow the caller's orders and protests against Sandra. The restaurant manager calls her regional manager. He explains to her that he is ill and has no knowledge of this incident and that he has not spoken to an officer Daniels about the alleged theft.
The police have now been called. They take care of Becky at the restaurant. Upon investigation, they discover a link to a similar case elsewhere.
The police were able to identify the caller through images of a video recording: a salesperson who works in a call center and gives the outside world a staid family man. Becky meets with a lawyer for advice on a lawsuit. Sandra loses her job; she hasn't seen Van since that Friday. During a TV interview , Sandra is advised by her attending lawyer not to answer certain questions.
background
The film is based on an incident that occurred in April 2004 in a McDonald’s restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky, USA . There, a caller calling himself "Officer Scott" requested the assistant restaurant manager to completely undress and investigate a young employee on charges of theft. At a later date, her fiancé took over the guard, which resulted in sexual abuse of the employees. The film refers to a "true story" in the credits, but without mentioning the events in Mount Washington.
The caller's approach is reminiscent of the Milgram experiment , in which the combination of praise, threats and the declaration of accepting responsibility increases the willingness to undertake questionable actions on other people without further inquiry.
“The psychological foundation of compliance is based on the principle of diffusion of responsibility and the Milgram experiment, two very functional ways of making people take extreme actions. And so it doesn't stop with Becky getting rid of her clothes. This is only the beginning of the perverse activity that will end traumatically for everyone involved. "
criticism
“[Craig Zobel] resists the temptation to make the viewer a voyeur, prefers to let the story speak for itself. [...] Zobel was obviously not interested in clearing up the case. Rather, he doesn't want to unnecessarily dramatize the story here either. The disadvantage of this approach is that compliance stretches a little in the middle part. We already know the matter is a (bad) joke and we are waiting for something new to happen, for the plot to move forward somehow. And that can get on your nerves.
In the meantime, you have no choice but to ask yourself how you would have reacted. How far one would have gone. People must have been very, very stupid, let's explain the unimaginable. [...] There, too, it became apparent that under special circumstances people do things, often cruel ones, which we did not think they were capable of doing. And that we are convinced we would never do ourselves. Want to be convinced. Perhaps that is the reason why compliance gets so close and causes a lot of anger: It shows us that it doesn't need any special circumstances at all. Sometimes a simple phone call is enough. "
“ Compliance is one of the most exhausting, because it works best, psychodrama in recent years. The film is, as much one can definitely say, a strongly polarizing work. Not all viewers will be able to or want to see him until the end. It will by no means be a pleasant pastime for those who do. The film hurts, you don't want to look and you should, because the question of obedience, which is negotiated here on a smaller level, is one that also arises very often in everyday life. The same mechanisms that are played out here in the back room of a burger shop are also used in dictatorial regimes. So compliance is n't just a terrible little movie. He draws his horror from the fact that every viewer has already experienced these mechanisms and in no case could clearly say that he or she would act differently in such a situation.
It's the horror of predictability, the knowledge of how manipulable we all are, that gives this film so much depth. Facing this fact in the eye and looking at the abysses is tough - but it's worth trying in this film. "
“ Compliance, on the other hand, illustrates the psychological problem of obedience to authority very skillfully, but fails to show the viewer one's own destructive urges.
Haneke's index finger is pointed at the guilty characters and the audience reflected in them. Craig Zobel lacks this duplication of discrimination. Compliance pillories its characters, but leaves the viewer with their self-righteous illusions. "
“It's just a shame that director Craig Zobel breaks up this uncomfortable intimate play intensity too early with intercuts on the telephone prank perpetrator who turns out to be commonplace. Conclusion: a stunned lesson about followers. "
Awards (selection)
Ann Dowd received the National Board of Review Award for Best Supporting Actress in 2012.
Web links
- Compliance in the Internet Movie Database (English)
- Official page for the film
Individual evidence
- ↑ Voluntary self-regulation of the film industry (FSK): release certificate, test no. 137 629 V (PDF)
- ↑ Compliance. Retrieved on February 28, 2017 (German).
- ↑ McDonalds employee sexually humiliated. In: Die Welt - Online. December 5, 2006, accessed on February 27, 2017 (German).
- ^ Restaurant Shift Turns Into Nightmare. In: ABC News. November 10, 2005, accessed February 27, 2017 .
- ^ Beatrice Behn: Compliance. April 2013, accessed February 28, 2017 .
- ↑ Oliver Armknecht: Compliance. April 29, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2017 .
- ^ Beatrice Behn: Compliance. April 2013, accessed February 28, 2017 .
- ^ Martin Gobbin: Compliance. August 30, 2012. Retrieved February 28, 2017 .
- ↑ http://www.cinema.de/film/compliance,5337803.html