Experimenter

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

Less a biopic of Stanley Milgram and more a reenactment of his behaviour experiments in the 1960s and a look at the controversy they sparked, 'Experimenter' offers a fascinatingly detailed account of contemporary history while also raising several intriguing questions about the way we as human beings function. It is quite a stylish film too and while some of the stylistic touches (green screen backgrounds; wandering elephants) offer more of a distraction than enhancement, Bryan Senti's music score is appropriately creepy and the film utilises a technique in which Milgram (played by Peter Sarsgaard) speaks to the audience to very good effect. While the film skims over Milgram's background and simplifies his interest in psychology to a fascination with Nazi control, we get an excellent insight into how Milgram constantly feels along the way with the ethics of his research put under the microscope. Sarsgaard is very good too, ageing a fair bit during the course of the film, and the distinct dearth of non-work scenes feels very much on point as we get the sense that Milgram was a man married to his work. The film also uses some dark humour to highlight the arguable detriments of dedicating one's every waking hour to one's work. In a memorable scene, a bunch of Milgram's student react nonchalantly to his announcement of the 1963 Kennedy assassination, not believing him for a second and instead trying to work out what reaction what Milgram must be looking for with the declaration of such news. It is a relevant point too; while ethical dilemmas exist when subjects do not realise that they are being experimented on, can behaviour ever really be analysed if participants on the flipside believe or know they are being experimented on?

Gripping study. Explains my own thoughts of Nazi Germany.

While some people complain this movie is boring, I believe it is a really compelling story and includes very easy-to-understand explanations to Milgram's experiments (which I consider fascinating). It was not meant to be a super original or fast-paced movie, so I don't see how the "boring" adjective is fitting. Its aim was to describe what he had done and how it was interpreted and its impact on society. So yes, I recommend it for whoever is interested in his theories.

Science and Psychology in Academia and Art are not usually Associated. But that didn't stop Director Almereyda Painting a Canvas of the Surreal and Expressionistic in telling the Story of the Real-Life Professor Peter Milgram and His now Famous and Controversial, early Sixties 'Experiments" and Study. What has become Infamous as the "Shock Study" has its Detractors but over Time, as the initial "Shock" of the Methods and the Results were Contemplated and Peer Reviewed, are now mostly Accepted as Valid and Repeatable. The Film is Straight-Forward about the Study, the Man, and the Repercussions He endured. Verbally, the Script is Played out in typical, Dry, Academics. But the Director Unleashes many Bizarre Backdrops and Heightens the Reality to Absurdity to give the Film a Pleasant, Dreamy, Subconscious Feel as the Textbook Stuff is Explained. Many well Known and A-List Actors show up throughout the Film for a Scene or two and add some Weight to the already Heavy Subject, but it is the Whimsy of the Wrapping that keeps things Digestible for the Non-Eggheads. In Other Words, it is made to Entertain as well as Inform. Off-Beat and Self-Conscious, Playful, yet Ultra-Serious, Peter Sarsgaard and Winona Ryder lead this Lecture that Touches on many of the Controversial, Historical outcomes of the Professor's Work that is still being Studied to this Day.

I was excited when I learned a film was being made about he Milgram experiments. But I have to say the end result is rather tepid and unfocused. I think this is a result of the overly stylistic approach and unnecessary 4th wall tricks. Imo, the film should have spent less time dealing with Milgram's tribulations and narrowed the focus to the most famous of the experiments to keep the thematic waters from getting muddied. The most important elements get drowned by his personal life and what I interpreted as naval gazing on the scientific process. The recent film about the Stanford Prison Experiment was much more effective; a more balanced and dramatically involving film. Milgram's work was important and I am afraid this film is too tedious to start the conversation it should have.

I am a completely ignorant of Stanley Milgram's and his work, I wasn't really sure what I was getting into when I picked this movie last night outside of knowing it was a biopic. I actually watched this film with friends and we were found ourselves talking about it long afterwards. Peter Sarsgaard, does very well portraying the somewhat dispassionate and yet intelligent Milgram. There is a deep intelligence in this man, and a yearning to understand why we act the way we do when authority is imposed on ourselves, yet there is a severe emotional disconnect between implementing his experiments and discussing the fruits of his labor. When describing and explaining his work, he certainly does so in a very straightforward manner, but what the results say much about us as individuals and as a society. They certainly are noteworthy and it explains why he became such a noteworthy person in media and in the psychiatric world. Winona Ryder plays his loyal and supportive wife, who although may question his methods at times, certainly stands by his side throughout the events in this film. Several notable actors portray colleagues, participants, and other persons of interest throughout the film and add real talent and depth in the cast. There were some film experiments going on in the film itself, in terms of direction and visual representation of ideas. Milgram directly addresses the audience at times, breaking the rules of the '4th wall' by acknowledging you directly at the beginning of the film. At other times he breaks mid scene to address you again. There is a visual representation of the 'elephant in the room' when he discusses difficult topics that explain some of his more controversial methods during the early 60's. A flat 2 dimensional backdrop was used when visiting his old colleague and mentor, perhaps to represent a dull and somewhat awkward afternoon tea with someone he may have actually despised. Some of these methods were interesting, but most felt like a juxtaposition for the rest of the movie that was filmed in a much more typical manner. The questions raised by Migram's experiments are important ones. Why do we blindly follow orders? When do we take responsibility for our own actions? What percentage of people will say no and stand up to authority? His work had a common theme about human nature, and the results of which are somewhat disturbing and controversial to understand. They often display a dispassionate and often cruel side of ourselves, and that can be the most difficult answer to recognize. An interesting film and worth your time if you are curious about his life and works. 6/10