Sundance ’15: Z for Zachariah

Lets face it, the future surely won’t be utopian, like in Star Trek, and most likely won’t be dystopian as in 1984 (although some days you have to wonder). Chances are, it will just sort of be topian, as it is now. However, Craig Zobel puts his chips on a radioactive post-apocalyptic future in his adaptation of Robert C. O’Brien’s young adult novel Z for Zachariah (clip here), which screens during the 2015 Sundance Film Festival.

One by one, Ann Burden’s family members left the safety of their self-contained valley looking for survivor, eventually leaving her with only the family dog for company. One day, Loomis, a scientist in a heavy radiation suit staggers into the sheltered ecosystem. However, just when he thinks he has found an unspoiled Eden, Loomis contaminates himself in a stream fed from an outside source. With the help of his meds, Burden slowly nurses him back to health. He appears to be the companion she has long prayed for, but his scientific materialism is somewhat at odds with her rugged Christian faith.

Nevertheless, mutual attraction steadily percolates between them, until it is interrupted by the arrival of another stranger. On paper, Caleb the former coalminer would be a better match for Burden because of their shared values, but she is surprisingly frustrated by Loomis’s passive reaction to his potential rival. At least an additional set of hands can help build Loomis’s proposed hydroelectric generator, but then what?

Perversely, screenwriter Nissar Modi removes everything that was distinctive and challenging about the novel written by the Mrs. Frisbee and the Rats of NIMH author Robert Leslie Conley under the O’Brien pseudonym, replacing it with a shopworn post-apocalyptic love triangle. Since Caleb was Modi’s creation, he could have at least made him more interesting. However, the watering down of the pitched struggle between Burden’s traditional values and Loomis’s scientific fanaticism is real loss. Frankly, one would have thought that was what attracted Compliance helmer Zobel to the project in the first place.

Still, Z is notable in one respect. It makes a major career statement for Margot Robbie, in a radical departure from her sexpot roles. It is a sensitive performance that presents Burden’s faith in a respectful manner, while also convincingly portraying the slow awakening of her long dormant sexuality. As usual, Chiwetel Ejiofor exudes wounded dignity as the new and improved Loomis, but evidently Chris Pine has seen as many apocalyptic films as the rest of us have, because he just looks bored out of his mind as Caleb.

If you are not going to preserve its themes, why pretend to adapt a book in the first place? Obviously, Modi’s adaptation is an attempt to cash in on the craze for dark futuristic YA projects, but the final product is guaranteed to disappoint fans of the novel (and the earlier 1984 BBC adaptation). As a point of comparison, J.C. Schroder’s Forever’s End has a similar feel, but is far more compelling. Only recommended for fans of Robbie who want to see her take her craft to the next level, Z for Zachariah screens again tonight (1/25) at the Sundance Mountain Resort, tomorrow (1/26), Thursday (1/29), and Saturday (1/31) in Park City, and Friday (1/30) in Salt Lake, as part of this year’s Sundance.

Compliance: Please Don’t Strip Search Your Employees

Aren’t cop shows popular in the Midwest anymore?  Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Law & Order franchises should understand the principle of lawyering up.  Yet, one teen-aged fast food employee allows her manager to humiliate her on the instructions of a caller falsely identifying himself as a police officer in Craig Zobel’s ripped-from-the-headlines-with-the-names-changed-to-protect-the-innocent indie drama Compliance (trailer here), which opens this Friday in New York.

Sandra, the manager, is under a lot of stress.  She does not have enough bacon or pickles to make it through the weekend.  Becky is an okay, but not great employee.  When “Officer Daniels” calls Sandra sight unseen claiming a customer accused the teenaged cashier of stealing money from her purse at the check-out counter, she is surprised but not incredulous.  Just why the accuser never said anything at the time is an obvious question never asked.  Dutifully, Sandra agrees to help Daniels’ investigation by sequestering Becky in the backroom, rifling through her belongings, and before long even strip-searching the confused young girl.

Of course, Sandra cannot find the “missing” money, which allows “Officer Daniels” to continue escalating the situation.  Periodically, other restaurant employees are brought into this sensitive situation, who either reluctantly comply (so to speak) or wash their hands of the mess.  To Zobel’s credit, he never plays any gender warfare cards.  In fact, the voices of reason at this Chick-Wich are all male.  However, the biggest offender also happens to be Van, Sandra’s inebriated fiancé, enlisted to “guard” Becky.

Yes, this is loosely based by a real case that even inspired an episode of Law & Order: SVU.  While we cannot intellectually dismiss the events depicted in the film out of hand, it is important to remember they took place over the course of hours.  This is a boiling frog phenomenon that simply is not credible in a mere ninety minutes.  Granted, old Van was drunk as a skunk, but going from “hello Officer Daniels” to absolutely indefensible acts in about sixty seconds flat is dramatically problematic on-screen, regardless of the actual case files.

Pat Healy is effectively creepy and authoritative as “Daniels,” while Ann Dowd convincingly puts a harried every-person face on Sandra.  Dreama Walker (known as a recurring on Gossip Girl) also has some very well turned scenes that help explain the victim’s mindset.  Frankly, their performances are good enough to sell the initial set-up.  It just spins out too quickly into some rather lurid places.  Witnessing it all is supposed to challenge viewers to wonder what they would have done had they been in Sandra or Becky’s shoes.  However, many will probably just quietly repeat to themselves the mantra: “right to an attorney.”  After all, third graders can recite the Miranda warning by heart these days.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Compliance is its borderline vicarious sadism, essentially condemning its cake and eating it too.  Ironically though, the acts it portrays will make it easier for viewers to erect walls around the film and flatly deny they could ever be induced to act in such a manner.  Hopefully, they are correct.  At times provocative, but also rather messy and ham-fisted, Compliance is a notable failure, probably worth viewing at a later stage for those who want to know what all the furor was about when it so sharply divided audiences at this year’s Sundance.  For now, it opens theatrically tomorrow (8/17) in New York at the Landmark Sunshine.