Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of ethics in film making
The stanford prison experiment flashcards
Positives and negatives of the stanford prison experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of ethics in film making
The Stanford Prison Experiment, directed by Kyle Alvarez, was suspenseful and compelling. In 2015 the film won the Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize and the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award at the Sundance Film Festival ("Awards"). The film is set at Stanford University, where Psychology professor Dr. Philip Zimbardo set up a mock prison experiment. He and his colleagues selected college students to play as guards and prisoners for their prison by conducting interviews. The purpose of the experiment was to “understand the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations in a simulated prison environment” ("The Stanford Prison Experiment"). The film is based off of a true story, and the events that actually took …show more content…
Zimbardo and Dr. Christina Maslach (Olivia Thirlby). Their scenes together felt awkward and forced. The worst of this, was the scene where Dr. Maslach noticed the atrocities the guards were committing and the psychological damage that was being inflicted on the prisoners. She stormed out of the building and Zimbardo followed her to calm her down. They argued back and forth over the experiment until Dr. Maslach gave a monologue on how awful the experiment is and should not allow the young men in the experiment to be subject to the abuse that was occurring. She begged Zimbardo to end the experiment. I watched this scene, hoping he would come to his senses. The confrontation between these two characters finished with Zimbardo replying with a sarcastic remark, and Maslach storming off. This moment felt rushed and did not seem to have an impact on Zimbardo. However, Dr. Maslach’s actions at this moment were very important to the story because she was the only scientist in the film who showed a sense of morality. Whether this incident influenced Dr. Zimbardo to end the experiment or not was not made clear in the film. Altogether, Dr. Maslach was an important character in the film, but her relationship with Zimbardo felt fake and …show more content…
Director Kyle Alvarez did a wonderful job. In fact, I did not have any complaints with the directing of the film. Alvarez seemed to make the most out of every scene. (Give an example)... He filmed with a lack of color, consisting of mainly neutral colors. This fits the film well and emphasized the lack of happiness during the events that occurred. Each shot took place in smaller spaces oozing with a sense of claustrophobia, allowing for every scene to be packed with emotion. As I mentioned before, the acting of the guards and prisoners was excellent in every scene. Alvarez may or may not have influenced that. Every scene was shot in such a way that I could feel the emotions of every character. The sound track provided an extra punch of emotion in every scene with eerie undertones creating a suspenseful atmosphere. I was utterly impressed by Alvarez 's work. His directing through his color scheme, camera angles, and the soundtrack was breathtaking. Kyle Alvarez’s work here has made me excited to see any of his future
The film conveys the feelings of the characters very well. Phillip Noyce uses lighting which always goes very well with the scenes even though he uses a lot of non-diegetic and contrapuntal sounds. The film?s shots are always correct and seem to have a purpose and the editing is wonderful.
Then he was given his rights at the station and was fingerprinted. He was then taken to a holding cell to think about what he had done On the second day the guards' behaviour began to degenerate so by the sixth day the experiment was cancelled. Two prisoners were removed from the experiment in this time. The experiment obviously had a serious flaw; this is thought to be Dr Zimbardo's involvement (he acted as the superintendent).
On August 14, 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment had begun. The volunteers who had replied to the ad in the newspaper just weeks before were arrested for the claims of Armed Robbery and Burglary. The volunteers were unaware of the process of the experiment, let alone what they were getting themselves into. They were in shock about what was happening to them. Once taken into the facility, the experimenters had set up as their own private jail system; the twenty-four volunteered individuals were split up into two different groups (Stanford Prison Experiment).
People will do some of the craziest things when any level of force is placed upon them. People will succumb to the pressure of doing things they had never imagined they could do. Just recently people can look at the events of the revolts in Northern Africa and the extremes the people did to over throw their governments, events at Abu Ghraib, and the recent riots in Missouri. When mass hysteria or force from others is involved people will succumb to the situation and may do things they would normally deem immoral.
Now sure, the Stanford prison guards didn’t go that far as the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib but the torture and abuse towards the prisoners became worse by the day indicating they could have gone as far as Abu Ghraib. However, in both cases there are unusual punishments and cruelty. This was due to the authority allowing it, ordering it, just didn’t care or didn’t know. Like the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo didn’t do anything to stop the abuses at the mock prison but allowed it.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment, a study done with the participation of a group of college students with similar backgrounds and good health standing who were subjected to a simulated prison environment. The participants were exposed completely to the harsh environment of a real prison in a controlled environment with specific roles of authority and subordinates assigned to each individual. The study was formulated based on reports from Russian novelist Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky had spent four years in a Siberian prison and his view on how a man is able to withstand anything after experiencing the horrors of prison prompted Dr. Philip Zimbardo a Professor of Psychology at Stanford and his
“Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks.
Subjects became so entranced in these roles that the guards started to behave as if they really were the guards of a true prison. Zimbardo had told them to think of themselves in this way and it led to the guards mentally abusing the prisoners with their cruel and degrading ro...
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. The experiment was a landmark study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. In social psychology, this idea is known as “mundane realism”. Mundane realism refers to the ability to mirror the real world as much as possible, which is just what this study did. Twenty-four subjects were randomly assigned to play the role of "prisoner" or "guard" and they were made to conform to these roles.
In August of 1971, American psychologist, Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment at Stanford University studying the behavioral and psychological consequences of becoming a prisoner or a prison guard. He wanted to observe how situational forces impacted human behavior. Zimbardo, along with prison experts, a film crew, and a former prison convict dramatically simulated a prison environment both physically and mentally in order to accurately observe the effects of the institution on its participants. This experiment later became known as the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment.
After only six days the Stanford Prison Experiment was stopped, after they originally planned it to last for two weeks. This was not because Zimbardo thought it should be, of the guards out of line behavior, or because outsiders thought so. The experiment finally stopped because of a graduate student was helping Zimbardo told him that it was out of control. I am very surprised from the results of the experiment. The power of situations was shown to be much more powerful than I ever would have thought. Because of the way the prisoners were treated, I do not think there will ever be another experiment like this ever again, even though a lot of valuable information was attained for conducting it.
Zimbardo acts like an eye in the sky knowing what happens to everyone and the outside voice is neutral. Zimbardo does not have limit on what he saying, so this makes him the expert. The voice is more like to fill in the blanks and therefore it reverts the attention to Zimbardo as the voice of knowledge. The guard and the prisoner seem to have a lot to say but in reality they do not, Zimbardo does most of the speaking. They are both included for the emotional aspect of the experiment and make it seem more interesting. Zimbardo also expresses emotions but a lot less than the two emotional appeals and tries to keep a curiosity tone towards the part he explains how he should have not been playing a role in the prison. That’s where we have another logos attempt. He “should have of had a collage looking overseeing the experiment”. Someone who could have ended the experiment or if he was main researcher he should not have had role in
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
One inmate suffered from a physical and emotional breakdown. The conditions became so severe that he was released. Zimbardo later stated that, “we did so reluctantly because we believed that he was trying to ‘con’ us.” Clearly Zimbardo was overreacting and should have seen that his actions and choice of experimentation caused the man to spiral out of control. By day 4, a rumor was going around that they newly sprung inmate was planning another revolt. As a result, they moved the entire experiment to another floor of the psychology building, and yet again another inmate suffered a breakdown. Soon after, he was released, and over the next two days, two more inmates would do the likewise. A final example of the effects of this experiment is shown when a fifth inmate is released. This time, the man developed a psychosomatic rash over is entire body. These are usually caused or aggravated by a mental factor such as internal conflict or stress, similar to all of the conditions faced inside the mock prison. After the fifth grueling day, Zimbardo finally thought his experiment was a success. The events inside the prison walls were occurring just as Zimbardo had planned. He was finding success and joy in these grown men’s emotional breakdown, and many thought this experiment could be considered ethically
Everything made sense, and lined up perfectly. Everything the characters brought up or talked about was well described to the viewer. For example, Captain Ramius explained in depth why he wanted to effect, as well as his main officer Borodin. The director kept the movie moving and intense. It left you on the edge of your seat a lot.