Academic experiments rarely achieve fame, but, of the few that have, the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment — the subject of a new like-titled movie from director Kyle Patrick Alvarez — is only equaled by the earlier Milgram study, which dealt with similar issues in a smaller, more controlled way.

For those unfamiliar with the Stanford experiment, a very brief description: Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo recruited 24 Stanford undergrads to recreate prison conditions. Half were randomly chosen to be guards, the other half prisoners. The latter were put in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology department and overseen by the guards.

Zimbardo's thesis was that the roles themselves could induce uncharacteristic behavior, i.e., prison sadism is not caused by inherently “bad” personalities, but is an institutional phenomenon. By contemporary standards, the setup would be considered unethical on a number of grounds. Zimbardo directed the guards to depersonalize the prisoners, only stopping short of physical harm.

The result could be considered a catastrophic success. The experiment was supposed to go on for two weeks, but things got out of hand so quickly that it was terminated after six days. Zimbardo himself lost perspective and might have let it go on longer, but his girlfriend (and later wife) showed up and was appalled by what she saw.

There have been at least two previous films about this — the German “Das Experiment” and its American remake (“The Experiment”), both of which fictionalized the story substantially. “The Stanford Prison Experiment” comes much closer to being the “official” version. Details appear to follow the real events closely. And Zimbardo was involved in the production.

One might think that Zimbardo's involvement would skew the portrayal of him (and of the experiment). All one can say is that, if the on-screen Zimbardo (Billy Crudup) is a whitewashed version, then the real guy must have acted like a monster. What we see is plenty bad enough. Assuming that Zimbardo is portrayed accurately, he deserves credit for not making himself look better.

Alvarez cast a bunch of up-and-coming actors. The two most familiar are Ezra Miller (“We Need to Talk about Kevin,” “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”) and Michael Angarano (“The Knick”), and they get a hefty share of the screen time, with Miller as the most rebellious prisoner and Angarano as the dominant guard. (Angarano's character starts imitating filmdom's most famous sadistic guard — Strother Martin in “Cool Hand Luke” — early on and clearly feels disturbingly comfortable in the role.)

While they are the most memorable characters, everyone does good work, though the attention to detail, the film's length (slightly over two hours), and the general unpleasantness of the goings-on can make it tough to sit through.

Crudup often fails to make a strong impression — “Almost Famous” being the biggest exception — but here he seems to be channeling his inner Christian Bale. His hair and beard make him look Mephistophelian, and his portrayal of Zimbardo's academic obsession and its effects makes the professor feel as much a villain as a protagonist.

--

ANDY KLEIN is the film critic for Marquee. He can also be heard on “FilmWeek” on KPCC-FM (89.3).