Film Review: Compliance (15), (U.S.A. 2012) (Director: Craig Zobel), Monday 01.04.2013 13:00, The Cameo Cinema, Screen Three, Edinburgh
This is quite an odd though appropriately at times both uncomfortable and unsettling film. The film states at it's end and on advertising for it that the film is based upon over 70 similar events that have been reported in the United States across a period of just over the past decade.
Essentially it details how fast food establishments have been targeted by hoax calls from people claiming to be authority figures/police, and how by people's non-questioning of what is being said to them at times of considerable stress they have wound up being involved in circumstances where employees have comes to feel themselves to have been assaulted and at times sexually violated. The plot begins with an employee being accused over the phone of having stolen money from a customer, and the nature of how the employee is treated escalates.
The film, for the duration of the hoax occurring feels to have an incredulity as to what is being depicted, as it is hard to believe what characters allow themselves to do in such circumstances. The film feels hard to fault, all of the acting appears fine, particularly the lead Dreama Walker, who ably conveys moving from anger, defensiveness and dismay to resignation. A question could be asked as to why obscure camera shots of the fast food establishment are shown, although this does add to the overall sense of grubbiness.
The only real criticism I have is that the film starts with a page of text. It is not this that annoys, though that within the text you are informed that the detail of the film is shocking. I don't like films telling me how I should view them and this stuck as a blatant instruction.
I have heard critics speak dammingly about the film. The fact that the story appears to be a compost of these over 70 reported cases has been raised up as basis for questioning the director's motivation in making the film. I think this is harsh, as the story pool, due to the number and similar nature of the crimes could be seen as heightening how alarmingly it is that people have commonly become such passive and non-questioningly compliant with those who we understand to be authority.
I have also heard the film term as being exploitative. This again I feel is harsh as I think there is a big difference between depicting exploitation and being exploitative. There were incidents and developments either obscured or out-of-focus. What could be seen as the greatest violation was only implied and was never overtly displayed or referred to. The same critic who termed the 'Compliance' exploitative was also rather too fond of that stinker of a film 'Side Effects'; now that is an example of exploitation.
On the whole I would say that I was impressed by the film, though would be careful as to who I recommended the film to as it is not a comfortable watch.
Rating: 9/10.
Essentially it details how fast food establishments have been targeted by hoax calls from people claiming to be authority figures/police, and how by people's non-questioning of what is being said to them at times of considerable stress they have wound up being involved in circumstances where employees have comes to feel themselves to have been assaulted and at times sexually violated. The plot begins with an employee being accused over the phone of having stolen money from a customer, and the nature of how the employee is treated escalates.
The film, for the duration of the hoax occurring feels to have an incredulity as to what is being depicted, as it is hard to believe what characters allow themselves to do in such circumstances. The film feels hard to fault, all of the acting appears fine, particularly the lead Dreama Walker, who ably conveys moving from anger, defensiveness and dismay to resignation. A question could be asked as to why obscure camera shots of the fast food establishment are shown, although this does add to the overall sense of grubbiness.
The only real criticism I have is that the film starts with a page of text. It is not this that annoys, though that within the text you are informed that the detail of the film is shocking. I don't like films telling me how I should view them and this stuck as a blatant instruction.
I have heard critics speak dammingly about the film. The fact that the story appears to be a compost of these over 70 reported cases has been raised up as basis for questioning the director's motivation in making the film. I think this is harsh, as the story pool, due to the number and similar nature of the crimes could be seen as heightening how alarmingly it is that people have commonly become such passive and non-questioningly compliant with those who we understand to be authority.
I have also heard the film term as being exploitative. This again I feel is harsh as I think there is a big difference between depicting exploitation and being exploitative. There were incidents and developments either obscured or out-of-focus. What could be seen as the greatest violation was only implied and was never overtly displayed or referred to. The same critic who termed the 'Compliance' exploitative was also rather too fond of that stinker of a film 'Side Effects'; now that is an example of exploitation.
On the whole I would say that I was impressed by the film, though would be careful as to who I recommended the film to as it is not a comfortable watch.
Rating: 9/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment