Experimenter

Experimenter recounts the life and work of social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, highlighting his more prominent research and providing viewers with thought-provoking questions about the limits of human nature.

Much of the film depicts reenactments of Milgram’s obedience experiments, as a “teacher” moves through the shock levels, despite audible protest from the learner, all the way to the maximum of 450 volts. As the number of participants increased, so did the number of teachers who progressed to the maximum voltage. Although I felt as if the pacing of the movie could have been improved, it is this slow, relentless and seemingly inevitable progression towards the lethal endpoint of the shock generator that constitutes the core drama of the film. The participants, Milgram’s fellow psychologists, and even the audience, are forced to accept that time and time again, each variation of the study still saw a majority of people proceed all the way to the maximum. Despite the controversy and criticism surrounding the Milgram obedience experiments, why then, do people still turn to them for understanding whenever new stories about the horrors man is able to perform arise? Why are these experiments still covered in almost every, if not all, introductory psychology textbooks? Regardless of the intellectual and ethical fallout following the publishing of these studies, their findings do have to be somewhat representative of the human experience for them to have stood the test of time and public disdain.

Much like the elephant in the room, would that which we refuse to address be that we are not as independent in our thinking as we believe ourselves to be?

Furthermore, the film acknowledges that the backlash to the findings of the obedience studies was centered not around the idea that the participants experienced lasting psychological damage, but more that they were unable to reconcile themselves as being capable of performing heinous acts under duress. This weakens arguments that claim ethicality as a reason to reject the findings of these studies. Milgram’s research on obedience holds up a mirror that reveals depths of the human soul that prompts a second look, even when we would rather not.

Arguably one of the most interesting aspects of the film was its artistic set pieces. In order to match Milgram’s character’s frequent breaking of the fourth wall and omniscient nature, the film occasionally features scenes set against photographic backgrounds that are clearly fake. This gives these scenes a sort of dreamlike or artificial feel, which perfectly matches the film’s experimental subject matter. I felt as if these visuals were engaging in a way that kept the movie from becoming too mundane and ordinary.

Although most variations and reproductions of the obedience studies still reveal a majority who display obedience to authority, the existence of the minority who refused to obey proves to be hopeful. As the film itself educates audiences on the downsides to blind obedience, perhaps future samples will reflect more resistance to authority figures, emphasizing that we need not always do as we are told.

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." -Henry David Thoreau