Experimenter (2015) User Reviews

Fantastic

[pjr235 · 8/10 · 24 October 2015]

This movie gave a great insight into human nature and so did the experiments. Yes it was a tad slow but it only felt like that to me after I had watched it. I was immediately drawn in by the whole setup of the experiment and with the progression of the rest of them. This won't get anyone's heart pumping or racing but nonetheless I was glued to the screen with what this movie was trying to show me. I was so fascinated by the whole idea of it, that putting up with any of the 'slow' parts seemed quite easy. If you're in any way interested in human nature and how or why people could bring themselves to do certain things, you'll definitely appreciate this film.

I didn't know anything about this man or his experiments but I always wondered about the very same things he did in regards to the tragedy's he spoke of and others. How can people slaughter others or commit heinous acts, bring themselves to do these things and then simply claim they were only the messenger? I believe it's definitely worth a watch to anyone.

Surprisingly Accurate and Creative Retelling of the Most Important Experiment Ever Done

[idontdodrugs · 8/10 · 26 October 2015]

This movie is about Stanley Milgram, arguably one of the most important social psychologists in our field, and specifically about one of his most important experiment - his obedience to authority experiment.

The movie depicts to my knowledge accurately the setup, conduction, and results of the experiment and goes further, crafting an interesting and weighted portrayal of the man that Stanley Milgram was. The acting is low key, Peter Sarsgaard especially delivers a down to earth performance which shows that he rigorously prepared for the role. All supporting characters (e.g. Winona Ryder, Anton Yelchin) do a good job and no one distracts from the key issues raised by the experiment.

Cinematography is good, although nothing special. Occasionally there are creative moments in direction. When the 4rth wall is broken by Sarsgaard and he speaks directly to the audience, weird things happen in the background, making these moments very endearing and interesting.

There are no thrills or action in this movie, as well as no conventional drama. It is kind of a biopic with a twist, although I would say the biographic aspect is downplayed by the focus on this specific experiment. Many scientific issues are addressed on a side note (e.g. the ethical code of doing experiments, which triggered the proliferation of ethical committees for scientific research).

I would recommend this movie to people who are interested in science, more specifically in psychology (but not exclusively), that do not need action, drama, or thrills and enjoy a well researched and crafted movie with good acting.

Simple yet effective

[grantss · 7/10 · 3 November 2019]

In 1961 Dr Stanley Milgram performed a series of experiments that revolutionised our understanding of human behaviour, particularly with regard to obedience. It went a long way to explaining how the Nazis managed to carry out the Holocaust and explaining other historic events. This is the story of Dr Milgram, this famous experiment and his other work.

A simple yet effective telling of one of the great breakthroughs in sociology / psychology. Is quite a dry telling, with fairly low production values, but it largely works. Quite interesting, especially as you hear about the results of the main experiment plus some of the other experiments Professor Milgram performed.

As mentioned, it is quite dry though, so can feel a bit dull at times. We don't learn much about Milgram himself, even though much of his life is shown. His family life seems more like padding than anything else (even if his wife is played by the wonderful Winona Ryder).

Solid enough performance by Peter Sarsgaard in the lead role. Good supporting cast. Taryn Manning does look out of place though, playing a 1960s housewife. Maybe it is because I kept thinking of her as Pennsatucky in Orange is the New Black!

Very factly...

[Red_Identity · 16 October 2015]

This film is particularly surprising. It's very interested in many of the facts of the real life obedience experiment. In fact, one could even argue that it seems to be very dry and non- climactic. The docudrama, of course, is restrained and doesn't overdo anything with large dramatizations of events and beats. I can also very much see many people getting bored with it however. Saarsgard is really great, totally inhabiting and creating that version of Milgram. Glad to see Winona Ryder on the screen again. Overall, it is very subdued, but it is a great introduction to the experiment that really shows as much as we can learn about what motivates people to commit such crimes.

FORCED RATING

[MadamWarden · 7/10 · 28 November 2019]

I really liked this film. It is slow and, at times, difficult to focus on, but it covers a difficult topic with elegance and style. I loved the old school stylised sets and direction.

Saarsgad and Ryder are excellent. Low key but powerful.

The neat ending will bring an amused smile.

Really worth the watch.

Biopic of the man who wanted to know why we are obedient.

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 7/10 · 2 March 2016]

Peter Sarsgaard ('Black Mass and 'The Killing')stars as Professor Stanley Milgram who conducted a range of experiments as a social psychologist. His most famous/notorious were his 'obedience tests'. He conducted these using volunteers who were told to electrocute a stranger if they answered any pre set question wrong in a controlled environment. The doses increased as the test progressed. His wife is played by the wonderful Winona Ryder.

His results caused him both fame and derision and he is still used and cited widely today. The film follows the life of Milgram, his family and marriage and some of his personal acquaintances. Sarsgaard, as ever, is excellent and convincing but there are some filmatic techniques that were a bit odd. There is deliberate use of fake backgrounds - as if it were a play – in some of the scenes. There is also the use of an Indian elephant for two corridor scenes which is left totally unreferenced!?

This could be the elephant in the room has already escaped and is amongst us? I do not know but it is a great centre piece to get you thinking. And that is what this film is really about – challenging and questioning our ideas and ideals about who we are and how we would act if confronted with the self same situations. He called it the 'agentic state' whereby we say 'we were just following orders', or 'it's the law' or worse 'I was told to do it'. I find this sort of discussion fascinating and there is much more here in this film about Milgram's work. One I really enjoyed and feel easy to recommend even with the elephant.

An elephant?

[Shuggy · 7/10 · 1 August 2015]

For some reason I expected more of a documentary, so this docudrama nearly had me out the door, but the authoritative man in the grey lab coat persuaded me to stay.

It clearly, and to my understanding, accurately, lays out the format of the notorious Milgram Experiment, which is necessary for all that follows; the public and academic backlash, our involvement as we question whether we would behave like Milgram's subjects, and his own soul-searching. To be sure, he comes across as quite cold-hearted, and more self-doubt would have made a more interesting story. Instead, all of the doubt is carried by his colleagues and Wynona Ryder as his patient wife.

The original experiment is well-enough represented that the re-creation of a TV series about it (with Kellan Lutz as a young William Shatner playing the Milgram character) has some amusingly obvious elements of parody, and hence self-parody of this film.

The film has some unsettling features over and above the experiments themselves - scenes carried out in colour in front of poorly placed monochrome back-projections, and an elephant, yes, a real, if slightly out of focus elephant behind Peter Sarsgaard as he talks to the camera walking towards us along a university corridor. Why? If it's The Elephant In The Room, what are we not seeing?

As Milgram points out, he and his experiment are treated with opprobrium, but the results are accepted, and serve their purpose. While the Holocaust is repeatedly invoked (including footage of the Eichmann trial), and Milgram twice mentions that his name is Hebrew for pomegranate (in fact it's not but milgrom is the Yiddish), an obvious ethical parallel is not mentioned: the Nazi experiments of killing prisoners with X-rays, which are still shown (usually on an opt-in basis) to medical students.

Not a movie for everyone, but anyone studying psychology will love this movie.

[cosmo_tiger · 7/10 · 9 December 2015]

"How do civilized human beings participate in destructive inhumane acts?" Wanting to discover why humans do things that seem cruel and unusual to other humans psychologist Stanley Milgram (Sarsgaard) begins to conduct a series of social experiments. The more people he tests the more worried he becomes about the results, and about the fate of mankind. This is a very good movie, but not a movie for everyone. This movie is a little like the Masters of Sex TV show in the way that you watch an experiment being conducted and how the creator is treated. The movie is very interesting and having known very little about the real experiment it kept me interested and worried at the results as well. There is very little action in this and the movie for the most part is Saarsgaard talking to the audience and trying to explain his method, but I really thought it was interesting and I was surprised as to how much I enjoyed it. Overall, not a movie for everyone, but anyone studying psychology will love this movie. I give this a B.

My Wife Hated it I loved it.

[ryn-06139 · 9/10 · 18 October 2015]

Yes, as many other reviewers have eluded, the movie can be a bit dry. My wife got lost in the message because she lost interest rather quickly. It wasn't until I explained the message the movie was trying to convey that she seemingly became more interested.

**spoiler** Watch it until the end, the message is rather powerful. I specifically liked the ending because (Sasha) Stanley's wife allowed herself to fall in the same class when the nurse made her fill the paperwork while Stanley is having a heart attack. In this instance, I felt like I would have called BS and told the nurse to get a doctor ASAP, instead of calmly filling out the paperwork like she was doing. But then again, that's exactly the message the movie was delivering, that we easily follow orders without question even against what we think is right.

An okay biographical drama, not as good as Kinsey

[elle_kittyca · 6/10 · 17 October 2015]

I would give this film a 6 or 6.5 out of ten. I think it an important story in the history of psychology and the film should revive discussions about some important philosophical questions. You should see it especially if you do not know the story of the impact that these experiments had.

The obvious comparison is that both cover the lives of interesting researchers whose research had important implications. Kinsey, however, looked much deeper into the workings of the man himself-and that is something I found sadly undeveloped in The Experimenter. In comparison, I found this film rather one dimensional. I would say that was true of both the performances and the story, which were surface-only. I like Peter Sarsgaard, who was also in Kinsey. Here he gave an adequate though not very emotional performance. I'm not sure why they chose to make his facial hair so ridiculous, since it didn't really make him look anything more like the subject. In short, I would have liked to see a little more depth in exploration of the implications of the research, the effects on his life, etc... This film was a bare-bones explanation and a bit of depth could have been added easily and made for a much better film

A whole lot of nothing...

[baybee-87045 · 1/10 · 25 October 2015]

Am i the really the only one who didn't liked It? Jesus this was just boring..nothing happens in this film and peter Sarsgaard is absolutely the wrong cast for this role. He is indeed a good actor..but this role just didn't fit him...he is trying too hard to come off as a comfy intellectual man and his monotone way to speak is annoying... Naaah sorry, this film only got its high rating cause of the big names in the cast...and references to the holocaust is getting a little bit old..i was waiting for something to happen..and something indeed happened..i almost fell asleep...typically IMDb rating, doesn't count how the film actually was..only names are important

Amazing...but I am not sure how many others will think so as well...or even watch it in the first place.

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 8 January 2016]

2015 was a very unusual year because two different movies debuted that were about famous (or perhaps infamous) studies that are discussed in practically every introductory psychology textbook published over the last three decades. After all, it's not like there is a huge demand for this sort of thing and the market for such films is pretty limited. While I was not particularly impressed by "The Stanford Prison Experiment", "Experimenter" is simply terrific and I was shocked by the wonderful writing and direction by Michael Almereyda. In fact, it's so good and the style is so amazing that I think most everyone could enjoy and appreciate the film...if they end up seeing it, which isn't very likely.

I have a greater interest in this sort of film than most people because I taught psychology and used to be a psychotherapist. When I taught, I frequently talked about the ethics or ethical lapses of the Zimbardo Prison Study as well as the Milgram Obedience Study. But, as I said above, the way Almereyda wrote and designed the film make it a film for anyone...not just geeky ex-psychology teachers!

"Experimenter" begins with a graphic depiction of Milgram's classic study. I was very surprised at the choice of actors, as Anthony Edwards (E.R.) and the stand-up comedian Jim Gaffigan played subjects in this experiment...and they both were excellent. In Milgram's experiment of the early 60s, there were two subjects--one a real subject and another who pretended to be one but who was actually working for the experimenter. The study was supposedly about learning methods and one subject was chosen to be the 'educator' and the other the 'subject'--but this was rigged and the real subject was always the educator. The educator's job was to read questions over a loud speaker to the subject in the next room. If the subject missed a question, the educator was instructed to administer an electric shock--and the intensity of the shocks increased throughout the experiment. The subject followed a script in which he eventually begins to complain about the pain of the shocks and even say that he wants to stop....yet the psychologist there in the room with the educator encourages them to continue. Amazingly, despite educators thinking they were causing significant pain, about 65% of them went all the way...even shocking the subject AFTER they stopped responding altogether!!

The experiment's true purpose was to demonstrate that the same sort of blind obedience to authority that the Nazis showed in the death camps and their willingness to follow rules still exists in societies today. Many praised his insightful and brilliant study, but many also criticized its methodology and thought the study was very unethical. This was also true in the Stanford Prison Experiment--yet, oddly, that film never really addressed concerns about ethics--which is why I found that film so disappointing. Fortunately, Experimenter did present both sides of the debate as well looked at Dr. Milgram as a person--something I never expected. To do this, they obtained the cooperation of the Milgram family t learn about the man. In fact, you can see the Professor's widow and brother interviewed on the special features on the DVD and they seemed very happy with the film. This is interesting because Stanley Milgram is very flawed in the movie. He's sometimes arrogant and smug and Almereyda did something very smart to help accentuate this. He had the actor playing Milgram, Peter Sarsgaard, occasionally turn to the camera and talk to the audience. This could have been awkward but really worked well in conveying Milgram's personality as well as giving a much fuller story about the man and his life beyond his seminal study. You learn about some other brilliant work he did at Yale, Harvard and the City University of New York...as well as the continued criticism he received during his career and its impact on him. Overall, this is a magnificently written and directed film with some wonderful acting that really needs to be seen by a wider audience. The film barely got noticed in the theaters but now that the film is out on DVD with Netflix this week, there's a chance for you to see a wonderfully crafted and engaging picture. Trust me on this one...you don't need to be a psyc major to enjoy this film!

Well acted, seemed like an experiment in film at times.

[kdavies-69347 · 6/10 · 26 January 2016]

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

Yes Virginia, That Really is an Elephant in the Room!

[spookyrat1 · 5/10 · 26 December 2019]

For those with an interest in Stanley Milgram's work, or indeed the man himself, I'm sure they'll find something to hang a hook on, in this quasi-documentary, rather than historical biopic. For me, I found Michael Almeredya's work about as enticing as a tarted up documentary, focusing more on his work and social responses, rather than the man himself.

I've little doubt the history police will have nothing to complain about with Experimenter in terms of its historical veracity. Much of the movie is just a series of vignettes justifying the movie's title. We literally are delivered experiment after experiment, with the various episodes often connected by a fourth wall breaking Peter Saarsgard, playing the good professor and explaining in great detail the rationale behind each experiment. It becomes pretty tedious quite quickly and ironically leaves little room for much of an examination of the man and his life outside his work. Winona Ryder despite having generous screen time as Milgram's wife Sasha, makes little impact in the narrative, due to the rigid docu/drama style employed by Almereyda. She's more like a stage prop used every so often to elaborate a point made by talking head Saarsgard.

The drama quotient does increase marginally in the second half of the film, when we do get some idea of the criticism Milgram receives from some of his peers and social commentators, regarding the ethical standards of some of his experiments. But this thread is never really allowed to develop, as we jump to a new experiment and/or new time period. And speaking of distracting devices that dilute dramatic content, can I just say to whoever was responsible for that ridiculous beard that Saarsgard wore in the last third of the film, "You had to be kidding".

Worthwhile dramatic biography of a landmark experimenter.

[TxMike · 25 February 2017]

I watched this at home on Netflix streaming movies. My wife chose to not watch it.

Much of the story centers on experiments done in the early 1960s at Yale by a professor of psychology. Peter Sarsgaard portrays that professor, Stanley Milgram. Being Jewish his outlook and studies were highly influenced by the Nazi treatment of Jews before and during WW2.

The experiments evolved, but involved paid volunteers who acted as "the teacher" and each communicated by voice only with "the student" in an adjacent booth. Questions were asked and if the student answered improperly the teacher would be required to give him an electrical shock. As incorrect answered continued each shock was at a higher voltage.

The test was to see if people would blindly follow instructions even after they heard the student yelling "It hurts, let me out." There never were any electrical shocks, in every case the student was part of the staff conducting the experiments. To Milgram's surprise about 2/3 of the "teachers" kept on following instructions. The obvious parallel are the Germans who executed Jews, often blindly following orders.

Milgram received an abundance of criticism, towards lying to the participants and traumatizing them with the thought that they were hurting people. Some would even ask the test monitor in the room, "Please check, he might be dead." But in the end these experiments and others he formulated contributed greatly to the understanding of human psychology. He died at the young age of 51, he was a professor at CUNY.

In a good role for her Winona Ryder was his wife, Alexandra 'Sasha' Milgram. In an inside joke at the party where Milgram met his wife she said "I am with Seth Horowitz". Horowitz is Ryder's actual family name.

Good movie.

The movie should end after 30 mins

[jackjones0 · 6/10 · 16 September 2022]

The movie ended for me after 30 mins, the actual expermint. The rest of the movie is about why it was made, how it is important, and its questionable morality.

They should've created a 30 mins documentary instead of this 98 minutes bloated movie.

I liked the idea of the expermeint and how it was made, actually I've read about it before. But what I don't appreciate is the extravagance continuation of what's after especially that movie filmed at the end. It was a movie about the experiment while we are already watching one.

I really don't recommend this movie to anyone, if someone is interested in this experiment just read 10 minutes article or watch a youtube video because it will be same as watching the movie, but with less time wasted.

A psychologist's life leaves a mark on many generations after

[srobertson-75103 · 7/10 · 10 March 2020]

I have heard about this experiment many times over the years...I even heard about it a few days ago on a podcast before seeing this movie. The movie goes through all of the work of Stanley Milgram along with all of his ups and downs in his career. This was an interesting movie and I liked how Peter Scarsgaard narrated as he went along. It was good to see Winona Ryder again. The acting was very good and it was interesting to see the backstory that went along with all of these experiments that we've heard about in school and elsewhere. You do need some patience to get through the movie - psychological experiments can be tedious on film and in real life.

Sometimes utterly fascinating, sometimes completely boring

[masonmorgan-92917 · 7/10 · 4 December 2016]

Michael Almereyda's Experimenter isn't what you would think it is. It is a documentary disguised as a movie that examines and experiments on the viewer through abstract story telling, bizarre imagery and personal quandaries. The film aims to tell us a very interesting story, but Experimenter always feels the need to remind us that we aren't as smart as the intellectuals showcased, making the audience feel considerably distanced.

To start, the acting is pretty excellent overall. While I was never familiar with Stanley Milgram before, Peter Sarsgaard gave an incredibly intriguing performance as the sly social psychologist. He brought a surprising amount of depth to a character who would seemingly appear shallow. Winona Ryder also gave an excellent performance as Milgram's spouse. Her character serves as the audience's character as she is mostly unfamiliar with Milgram's work. She helps to reveal layers of humanity and emotion that we never expected from the icy and straight- faced Milgram. Even the sub-characters with minimal screen-time put in a great effort. Their small movements and facial expressions during the film's first experiment sequences are incredibly realistic and make these scenes totally engrossing.

All the experiments shown and explained throughout the film are easily the film's best moments. These experiments and social predicaments are absolutely fascinating. They act as a vessel in which we can view raw human emotions and nature in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations. Sadly, the film insists on making us feel like we are the ones being experimented on, which puts a considerable distance between the film and audience.

Experimenter is a film about intellectuals and their need to put themselves above the public. The story shared with us is explained through abstract storytelling and some strange imagery, and many times throughout I couldn't shake the feeling that I was being pandered to. Experimenter becomes quite pretentious when it decides to abandon it's regular path of narrative and adopt a quirky and abstract style of storytelling. It isn't always like this though, but it does become quite obvious when the film thinks that it is so much smarter than it's audience.

Experimenter manages to be entertaining most of the time, despite it's complicated and deep social psychology. But when Experimenter is bad, it's really bad. There are some stretches within the film that are completely dull and boring. These stretches are somewhat infrequent, but the entire film does take a hit when a narrative slump this massive shows up. Luckily, these parts aren't quite long enough to completely ruin the film, but they still are quite noticeable and unpleasant.

The excellent acting and fascinating social experiments are more than enough to say that this film is enjoyable, but Experimenter doesn't bode too well when it so obviously sees the audience as below it.

Compliance

[sol- · 6/10 · 5 June 2016]

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?

An uncomfortable and self revealing film

[daz-15753 · 8/10 · 5 November 2019]

I have always wondered how other people can act the way they do, even when it seems to go against their core beliefs. This historical study and film helped me to question how I might betray my own strong beliefs, if certain conditions were present. How could otherwise sentient, empathetic human beings carry out the grunt work of the Holocaust, racism, or school bullying?.

I remember twice involving myself in school bullying, in primary school. (When I was about 10yrs old). The target person seemed like a bad guy, but was new to the school, had not fit in, and had been bullied. I think I got caught up in the crowd mentality, and although I only buried him verbally, perhaps at that age it never occurred to me to simply talk to him. Later I felt disgusted and confused by my behaviour, and just as confused by the crowd baying me on.

This is the only time during my life where I feel I have been purposely destructive to another human being, even if I think they deserve it. I mean really, what's the point. Among other things the film indicates, this sort of crowd mentality is part of the human psyche, but offers the possibility that if understood and explored honestly, perhaps can be countered.

We for some time now have lived in a global economy. Whilst our actions affect the earth, and all of us humans that share it, I think we are socially behind the technological advances, and perhaps the impact that we are having on the global environment. Are we being blindly obedient?. As a person of 53 years old, I would say that the younger generations seem to be more in touch with challenging the actions that confront these ideas, which is comforting.

Anyway.... A thought provoking movie, about ideas that are still relevant..... I'm off the soap box.

Very informative and uniquely presented

[Seraphion · 7/10 · 19 October 2015]

1961, Dr. Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment in Yale University, inviting volunteers who were then conditioned to act as a teacher administering incrementally increasing electric shocks punishment to an erroneous learner. Then we sometimes skip to when Stanley meets his wife Sasha. At the experiment, most subjects expressed anxiety but most of them went through to the maximum punishment to administer. Stanley explained the experiment to one subject, which was to learn about Obedience to Authority. Stanley explains his drive behind the experiment. Sasha visited Yale and with Stanley she saw the one instance a subject refuses to deliver the shocks, just because he knows about electrics. The experiment's script variations didn't change the conclusion. Stanley then tells about his thesis overseer Solomon Asch, who did the famous lines experiment.

1963, the experiment is published in a scientific journal and Stanley started work at Harvard with Paul Hollander. Some people show their disagreement to Stanley's method's in the experiment, that he tricked the subjects, that those methods are unethical. Negative reviews turns up in news papers. Then he had to explain himself when a harsh critic surfaced in a scientific journal. Stanley did a less controversial Small World Problem experiment A friend encourages Stanley to replicate the experiment in Europe to see different results, but Stanley has already sunk in Harvard as his work garnered many harsh critics. 1974, Stanley got to be CUNY's head of Social Psychology Department, and had already had two kids with Sasha. His book based on the experiment got published and he got invited on TV, still gaining harsh critics.

The experiment showed 65% of the subject obeyed malevolent authority despite showing anxiety and even disagreement about it. Stanley did another experiment about The Familiar Stranger. A TV producer George Bellak approaches Stanley about making a drama about the experiment, but it turns out that he only got consultation fee, as opposed to selling rights about his publication; due to the drama is a fictional work about the experiment. Sasha got upset about the fee. Once on break at the scene, Stanley had the chance to chat with the actors; where one of shared him his experience as a proof Stanley's experiment. In 1984 Stanley's book gained much attention, resulted in him being invited to teach around the world. But Stanley died that year due to a heart attack.

The movie tells about the life of the scientist who conducted the experiment, with adequate emphasis on the controversial experiment itself. Being so, the movie did enough justice between its own title about the person, and the importance of the experiment's conclusion. It's nice that the movie has Stanley explaining many of the experiments' mechanics, parameters and conclusions. The main spotlight on the Obedience to Authority gets the nice dose of dramatization; getting revisited from time to time without having to be to dramatic.

The other experiments Stanley did that were covered in this movie are also interesting, although less controversial. Many of those experiments, especially the ones which depended on mail, are going to be difficult to replicate today due to the advancement of the digital technology and the development of social mingling in the world today.

The artistic technicalities also drew my interest even more to the movie besides the main focus about the experiment. First is the way Stanley explain things by "breaking the fourth wall" as he speaks directly to the camera. This narration is done mostly with the background in motion, but at times we can also see that the background sort of pauses until Stanley stops talking. Then the way the movie used old-school patchy green screen on many different scenes is surely interesting. These make one wonder what those scenes have in common to have those different treatments.

Unfortunately, the acting work in overall is just a little bit above the standard. Peter Sarsgaard did a so-so performance as Stanley Milgram. He depicted the mannerisms for a scientist quite well and logical, but the face expressions should be improved. Even a rigid scientist will show a happy face when he's with his family and feeling happy. Winona Ryder did also just enough, although I think that her role didn't really have much significance to begin with for her to show her real abilities. It's nice to see familiar faces like Anton Yelchin, John Leguizamo, Taryn Manning and even Vondie Curtis-Hall, taking small parts. It makes one wonder who else that will show next.

I say that the movie deserves a 7 out of 10 score. A recommendation only goes for you who enjoy biopics or gets interested to learn about human nature. I feel this movie is quite entertaining because it presented the person and the experiment through quite an interesting way.

You too can work at Auschwitz- unless your Dutch

[joehlmann · 1/10 · 17 October 2015]

I was wondering where this film was going... and then it hit me Germans and the Holicaust

Soooo boring.... and then to top it off half way through the film (I think the director was bored out of his mind as well) they switch to a theater stage with a photo backdrop of the scene set. At this stage I left...

Not even the acting of Wyona or Peter Sarsgaard could save this boring script.

I thought there was going to be some insight into science but just ANOTHER movie to remind us all about the holocaust..There was no purpose but to define and show that the large majority of people could have worked at Auschwitz apart from 1 Dutch electrical engineer (good on you mate :D for saying no to electrocuting the Fat (I have a bad heart) blonde guy)

There may something more in the last 30 minutes but I doubt it.

The Agentic State

[twelve-house-books · 9/10 · 11 August 2022]

An agentic state is a state of mind in which a person will allow other people to direct their behaviors and pass responsibility for the consequences of the behaviors to the person telling them what to do. This is a concept in Stanley Milgram's Agency Theory and is one of two states that an individual is in during social situations. The other state is the autonomous state in which individuals direct their own behaviors and actions and take responsibility for consequences themselves. If in an agentic state people are 'agents' for another person and do what they are told to do, passing responsibility onto the ones directing their actions. Two conditions must be present in order to be in an agentic state. The first is that the person who is in charge and giving the orders must be viewed as a legitimate leader and qualified to direct behavior. The second condition is that the individual must feel that the leader will accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Research conducted by Milgram in his famous authority experiments showed that when individuals were told they had responsibility for the consequences of the increasing 'shocks' to the person in the other room they didn't obey the experimenter who was telling them to deliver the 'shocks' and wouldn't continue. When the experimenter would accept responsibility for the electric 'shocks' the participants would continue to deliver them to the person. This is an example of the agentic state: the participants would allow their actions to be directed by another person while giving responsibility to the person who was giving them the orders. The agentic state can only be overridden by the individual who fully operates within the understanding that no human is an authority figure, and that all important decisions are based on compassion for all life.

needs more drama

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 27 November 2016]

It's 1961 Yale University. Stanley Milgram (Peter Sarsgaard) is conducting a social experiment with assistants James McDonough (Jim Gaffigan) and Alan Elms. Test subjects are told to deliver electric shocks to a stranger played by McDonough. The shocks are actually fake and most participants obey. Stanley meets and marries Sasha (Winona Ryder). He continues to teach and work on other experiments like lost letters, and six degrees of separation. His publication of Obedience to Authority leads to criticism of his findings and the ethics of the experiment itself.

This is a solid biopic. The experiments are intriguing and even compelling at times. For some, the Obedience experiment may be eye-opening. Personally, I didn't realize the origins of the six degrees of separation. The movie feels informative but lacks real tension or danger. Sarsgaard's performance is mannered and expertly done. Jim Gaffigan adds a little bit of needed humor. I wouldn't mind fictionalizing a nemesis for Milgram even if it's only in his head. Filmmaker Michael Almereyda literally puts an elephant in the room and references Adolf Eichmann. He could have easily used a Nazi as Milgram's imagined enemy. Almereyda does plenty of visual experimentation to liven up the movie but sometimes, the scenes are better off with a straight forward telling. The elephant in the room is too cartoonish and on the nose. The rear-projection driving is unnecessary. The black and white photo background doesn't work if the scene is supposed to be real. At times, Almereyda seems to be going out of his way to be inventive.

OK if you don't know the story

[alexanderchalkidis · 5/10 · 6 January 2016]

There is absolutely nothing original about this film. At best it is a mediocre dramatized version of some experiments. It almost makes you wish you watched a BBC documentary about the events instead.

Wynona Ryder is badly cast because you are always expecting her to do something more impressive or more sexy or more...well anything. The pseudo theatrical backdrops and Miligram talking to camera would have been original, maybe a hundred years ago.

In all disappointing. Worse still, I am afraid that people not aware of the work of the real scientist it depicts will not even fully understand his other experiments which are very briefly described in passing.

The proof of the complete lack of structure of this film is the ending of course. There was nothing to go on, the guy wasn't Alan Turing or Jimi Hendrix, nothing dramatic to end with.