Experimenter tells the story of Stanley Milgram, the psychologist who did the famous shock experiments about obedience in the 1960s. It starts out as a straightforward biopic, with a rather detailed and laborious depiction of the shock experiment.  But 21 minutes in, Peter Sarsgaard, the actor playing Milgram, steps partly outside of his role and addresses the audience directly, and explains his motivation. There’s also a surreal element, since there is an elephant walking behind him down the corridor. Then the movie continues as before, with frequent other similar diversions from a regular narrative style, showing self-consciousness that this is a story.  There is also a voice-over from the Milgram character explaining the meaning of the experimental results, and how they are replicated with variations of other variables. The movie continues to mention other relevant psychological experiments also about social pressure and obedience. It’s made very explicit that the motivation to investigate obedience came from the recent history of Germany, with so many ordinary people following orders or expectations, with the disturbing conclusion that most people are easily susceptible to pressures from their peers and authority figures even when there is no clear penalty for disobeying. It is a disturbing conclusion that shows how people can be easily pressured to discriminate against and allow suffering to go on when they could stop it. Sarsgaard plays Milgram as intellectually curious and ambitious, but also troubled and even haunted by his need to pursue his studies into the unpleasant side of human nature.

Milgram’s worries are compounded when his experimental methods in the obedience research are questioned. We see how he received considerable criticism for deceiving his experimental subjects and putting them in a condition that made them think they were hurting others. But Milgram is also allowed to ably defend his work by pointing out that there was no reason to think that the subjects were harmed by their involvement in the experiment, and furthermore, that the results are important to understand human nature. It is bound to be troubling to have it demonstrated to oneself that one is not able to live up to one’s moral beliefs. No one wants to think they are so obedient that they would ignore what they think is right. But showing people this is not immoral. Viewers do get to see that the controversy means that he did not get tenure at Harvard, although he landed on his feet with a position at City College CUNY.

The movie shows many of Milgram’s other  experiments, and how they all relate to understanding our place in society and some of the great crises of the twentieth century. There is a nice DVD extra, giving a short interview with Milgram’s brother Joel, who was a professor of education at the University of Cincinnati. The brother says the movie does well at explaining Stanley’s emotional side, and his deep concern for the morality of his work.

So overall, while this movie is stylized and occasionally heavy handed, it does well at bringing out the thread of Milgram’s research over his short lifetime (he died of a heart attack at 51). The acting is fine, and the design is careful. The historical details of the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s are engaging. It highlights the ethics of the research and the philosophical meaning that Milgram’s have for our understanding of human agency.

© 2016 Christian Perring

Christian Perring was a philosophy professor for 24 years. He may be one again.