A brand new film from directors Ian Bousher and Theo Gee highlights the pair’s interest in psychology with a tribute to Asch’s experiments on conformity. Bousher and Gee met while studying Psychology at university therefore the heavy influences are of no surprise. Together they have brought artistic flair and dark humour to a deeply thought provoking subject.
One of the most brilliant things about ‘Aping’ is the way it’s simultaneously brash and in your face but also subtle and refined. An immediately effective artistic choice is the cinematic aspect ratio of 1:1 – a perfect square. This creates a sort of visual conformity that frames the film in a continual reminder of its underlying messages. As well as the carefully placed positioning of the opening shot, the entrance of a man known only as Chimp is similarly rich with the idea of societal conformation. His awkward entrance is marked by the somewhat laboured decision to close the door behind himself. No one tells him to but, of course, it’s the polite thing to do. Tim Scragg excellently portrays this uncomfortable character who clearly has some sense of self but ultimately becomes unhinged due to lack of validation hence succumbing to normative social influence.
As many films do, ‘Aping’ begins in a state of equilibrium; the five participants all give the same answers to questions that have a clear correct and incorrect answer. For example, ‘What is this shape?’ The shape is a circle which is confirmed as true unanimously by the participants as well as the computer screen. Things start to get more interesting, however, when four of the five participants decide that coffee ‘obviously’ belongs in a teapot. Ape (who is last to answer) begins by scoffing at them for giving what he perceives to be the wrong answer. From this point, rather than being concerned with what he believes is the right answer, Ape becomes increasingly frustrated with the other participants and the fact that these ‘wrong’ answers are being validated by the computer. This element of technology and the portrayal of how humans respond to it is interesting. Fearing being different or worse, wrong, Chimp quickly adapts his ideals and gives the same answer as everyone else.
The reason is left for us to determine but psychology would suggest that he is suffering a fear of rejection. The manner in which some of the participants answer may also contribute to Chimp’s cognitive dissonance. For example, Dolphin in particular is very aloof when answering using phrases that suggest superiority such as ‘assuming we’re not working on a technicality’. This creates the impression that she is above the questions and too mentally advanced to give a simple answer. This will easily lead others who are perhaps impressionable (like Chimp) to see her as an authority figure or perhaps a threat. The character name ‘Dolphin’ is very apt as they are considered the most intelligent animals – especially when not judging intelligence by how similar the animal is to a human (because let’s face it, we aren’t all that clever).
The next set of questions are interesting because they don’t have a right or wrong answer, as such. Instead they pose two choices. The juxtaposition between the types of questions could be to demonstrate how humans place limitations on themselves. The inner workings of Chimp’s brain are almost visible as he thinks ‘I know they’re wrong but everyone is doing it’. It’s one thing to pretend to agree with the answer to a simple question – perhaps they know more than you or are you weren’t sure of the answer to begin with. However, when given a choice with technically no right or wrong answer Chimp shows he has already been absorbed into following the crowd. At no point did the experiment say that everyone had to work together to choose the same outcome yet Chimp seems to believe he has no other choice and thinks ‘Okay, I’ll pour my water like this idiots’. Scragg is able to excellently communicate the inner workings of the characters brain which is essential for a film so heavily influenced by psychology. Dolphin (Julie Rose Smith) is similarly compelling as the initial ‘leader’, demonstrating how, as humans, we are perhaps eager to be led – to be shown the right way.
A clever shift of dynamic occurs in the ‘drink or pour’ question as Chimp puts his cup back before being told to. It may not seem the most rebellious manoeuvre but it marks his desire to go against the grain. Ultimately, however, Chimp’s fear of rejection is too great for him to emerge from a state of groupthink. His insecurities and doubts instead manifest in the form of violence and aggression. While Chimp believes he is acting out against the system, he actually becomes the main perpetuator of the ridiculous experiment, ensuring every question is answered how the computer suggests is correct. With the new found aggression, Chimp becomes the new ‘leader’, as everyone follows what he does. The power shift is evident as Chimp mirrors Dolphins earlier use of language. The role power plays in conformity is interesting as the film suggests that people will do things they don’t believe in not only to fit in with a crowd, but to gain superiority. Chimp seems to know that it isn’t morally right to throw cookies at Dolphin (annoying as she is) but seems to take pleasure in doing so anyway, as if the knowledge that it isn’t right makes him better than the other participants. He believes he is making a point by using sarcasm to show his true beliefs but Chimp is still conforming and actually begins to force others to crumble under normative social influence, the way he did at the beginning.
Elephant wants to discuss whether or not to throw the cookie, he wants the groups support in choosing to eat it. Rather than doing this, he goes with the group. As the computer confirms that throwing the cookies at Dolphin was the right answer, Chimp points at the screen as if to shift the blame. This is a very dangerous game to play as Chimp is now not feeling accountable for his actions; the group has provided him with the false belief that he has no choice. Similarly the concept of ‘fairness’ comes into play – Dolphin was mistreated and so it is only ‘fair’ that Lion gets whipped. So, where does this end? ‘Aping’ demonstrates how groupthink can easily snowball out of control and become unstoppable – especially when people’s egos are at stake.
As the final question comes forth, it becomes clear that Chimp’s rage is from his earlier incorrect answers and initial alienation from the group. As he kicks the dog, he rants about there being coffee in the teapot and the others watch in horror. One might say he went ape. Bousher and Gee have created a unique film that audiences will engage with in their own way. ‘Aping’ is both entertaining and horrifying, showing that as humans we are both uniquely intelligent, wonderful creatures and sensitive fools that will go to any extremes to fit in. With many influences, the film is visually impressive and well thought out. In addition, all five of the actors added their own bit to the psychological soup, bringing personality and humour to the film. ‘Aping’ is an excellent example of a short film!
If you liked ‘Aping’ check out the directors’ website at www.bousherandgee.com for more of their films or head over to their Instagram @apingshort !