The author, John Marek, is a writer and executive director of the Anson Economic Development Partnership.
At some point in our lives, most of us have been either the victim or the perpetrator of a prank phone call. Most of these calls are harmless. Many are legitimately funny; some are mean spirited, and a select few are dangerous. In college, some of my buddies and I would call a random number pretending to be from a fictitious sports radio station. We would ask a nonsensical question to (supposedly) win a prize. One question I specifically recall was, “Name the three teams in this year’s Super Bowl.” The “contestant,” likely a teen girl by the sound of her voice, got the first two teams right but, not surprisingly, struggled with the third one. Ultimately, she guessed Pittsburgh, which was “wrong,” but actually a pretty savvy answer given that the Steelers were a perpetual Super Bowl contender in those days.
Although those calls don’t represent my finest hour, I think even the “victims,” if they ever even realized they’d been pranked, would admit it was pretty innocuous. When done with malicious intent, though, prank calls can have devastating consequences. The movie “Compliance” is based on a series of incidents in the 1990s. A man claiming to be a police officer or other authority figure called small-town fast-food restaurants claiming that one of the employees had been implicated in a crime. The caller would convince the store manager or supervisor they needed to strip-search the employee or perform some other degrading or inappropriate act. While not a documentary, the film is based on the actual cases, combining several disturbing instances into a single narrative.
It is a brutal movie to watch. All the more so if you have some experience working in the very sort of rural establishments the prankster preyed upon. For several months over the fall and winter of 1985-86, I worked as an intern for Wendy’s International, assigned to a group of franchised stores in north-central Ohio. The people I met in those stores – managers, supervisors, employees, customers – looked and acted a lot like the people in “Compliance.” They were good people trying to do the right thing, but they also had a certain naïveté and a deeply-ingrained deference to authority. Honestly, I could see many of them acting precisely the way the characters in the movie do.
“Compliance” opens with the manager of a fast-food restaurant called ChickWhich having a heated discussion with a supply truck driver. One of the employees left the freezer door ajar after the previous shift, and she had to call the warehouse for an emergency shipment. The driver was not happy about having to change his route. The manager was trying to make the situation “right” before calling her district manager with the news about the $1,500 of food that spoiled.
Next, we see two young employees walking from their cars toward the building. From a brief conversation, we get the impression they have been employed here for a while and know the ropes. The boy seems to be interested in the girl in a way she does not acknowledge. The next scene is a pre-opening talk that gives us some essential information. This is one of the store’s business times. There is reason to believe a “secret shopper” from corporate may be coming in during the shift. They are down one employee who is out sick.
As the store begins to fill with customers, we learn a bit more about the characters from an interaction between the store manager, the shift supervisor and the young girl whose name we learn is Becky. Becky appears to be popular and well-liked if perhaps a little rebellious. The store manager, who is in her 40s, is unmarried but has a boyfriend who she thinks is close to popping the question.
A short time into the shift, the store manager gets a phone call from someone claiming to be from the local police department. He tells her that a customer has complained that a “young blond girl” at the register stole money from her purse. Since Becky is the only person matching that description, the store manager brings her back to the office for questioning. Becky denies any knowledge of the incident, and the store manager sticks up for her, saying there’s never been any indication of her doing anything wrong. The officer, deftly shifting between accusatory and complimentary, convinces the manager that the quickest way to resolve the issue is for her to strip-search the employee. If the money is not in the employee’s possession, then she is off the hook. The manager agrees because she sees it as the fastest way to get herself and Becky back out serving customers in the busy restaurant. Becky very hesitantly agrees to the search. After Becky dutifully disrobes and the embarrassed manager looks her over and finds nothing, they assume the ordeal is over. But not so fast, there’s one other thing the officer needs … And so begins a horrific drama that plays out over two or more hours and involves several people violating the naked teen. Finally, the disheveled-looking handyman, hardly the character you expected to be the voice of reason and morality, decides “this isn’t right” and calls the real police. An investigation turns up other similar cases, and a suspect, whose day job is telemarketing, is eventually identified.
The movie’s final act implies that the store manager was fired for her actions, that Becky successfully sued the restaurant chain for not properly training its managers, and that the perpetrator was arrested. In real life, a man from Kentucky was arrested and tried but was acquitted due to a lack of evidence directly tying him to the calls. At least the incidents stopped after he was arrested.
“Compliance” is a film that sticks with you long after the credits roll. The question the viewer inevitably asks themselves is, “How would I have responded in this situation?” We would all like to think there is no way we would have debased a teen girl based on a supposed police officer’s word over the phone. But, this fraud was perpetrated 70 times. In only a handful of instances, the manager immediately called out the scammer and refused to comply. Statistically, that suggests most of us would have been compliant, at least initially.
“Compliance” serves as a testament to how easily people can be lured into doing something they know is wrong for the sake of something they believe is right. In these troubled times, that is an important lesson. Society is based mainly on trust in authority. Without that trust, things fall apart quickly. But, to paraphrase a Russian proverb famously quoted by Ronald Reagan: Trust in authority, but verify.