The Experimenter lifts stigma behind Milgram study
Michael Almereyda’s docudrama, Experimenter, does what all Psychology 101 textbooks aim to do: teach psychologist Stanley Milgram’s famous obedience experiment in a way people will never forget. The fast-paced, 90-minute film takes the audience through certain points of Milgram’s controversial professional and personal life.
The film opens with the Milgram’s study, which he conducted while he taught at Yale. In the experiment, a subject is designated the role of the teacher while another person, one of the researchers, acts as the learner. Separated from the learner by a wall, the teacher is then tasked with reading off pairs of words before quizzing the learner. An incorrect answer from the learner results in a shock delivered by the teacher. The teachers were goaded by Milgram to deliver deadly, 450-volt shocks to the learner. In Milgram’s pool of subjects, 65 percent of the teachers delivered a shock of the highest capacity despite begging to stop the experiment. Only after the experiment did Milgram reveal that the learner’s anguished begging was just a recording, calling experimental ethics into question.
This film obviously aims to get the audience to sympathize with Milgram and his findings, as he asked if all people under obedience could be capable of comitting heinous crimes that occurred during the Nazi regime with people brainwashed by obedience. Experimenter made no effort to explore the other side of the story, leaving the film at a great disadvantage. Depicting historical and controversial figures as saints without addressing the concerns of the doubters weakens their argument.
Luckily, the film is carried by the the enormously talented Peter Sarsgaard. Sarsgaard is the standout performance — he engages the audience. Experimenter showcased Sarsgaard addressing the audience directly and showing moments from Milgram’s life. This film’s approach was not effective, but it was bearable because of Sarsgaard’s natural charisma in front of the camera. In particular, Sarsgaard’s diction was addictive. His voice is very smooth, deep and enticing, which made it easy to listen to him talk for most of the movie. However, Sarsgaard is more than just a suave voice. He is famous for transforming himself for each of his roles such as in An Education and Jarhead, and Experimenter is no exception. Sarsgaard not only adopts Milgram’s signature retro beard, ill-fitted suit and subtle hunch, but he also dives into the character’s idiosyncrasies. Every twitch of the eye and look that Sarsgaard gives helps make Milgram more than a name in a textbook. Almereyda, in that sense, succeeds in creating a multi-dimensional persona for Stanley Milgram.
There were also some moments of tenderness between Milgram and his children that, though they do not serve any purpose plot-wise, give a gilmpse into his personal life. The movie certainly allowed the audience to separate Milgram from his work.
Though Almereyda’s script should be acknowledged for its boldness in the docudrama genre, it is made weaker through poor editing that cuts between different periods in Milgram’s life in a way that was uncorrelated and too quick to appreciate. It feels like more of a mistake than a stylistic decision. The quick editing method also did not allow for the audience to follow the story coherently as it switched between a chronological and achronological structure.
However, at the end, there was an extremely powerful scene, between Milgram and his wife, Sasha (Winona Ryder). Sarsgaard delivers his lines with extraordinary ability reminiscent of Colin Firth in The King’s Speech: powerful and piercing to the heart. This scene left an impression on all audience members. And though one scene of excellent writing cannot excuse the poor script, it leaves the the audience thinking about their own free will and humanity, which is, at the end of the day, what Milgram wanted.