I’m confused. This looks like real science, not mad science. C’mon movies, I know you can do better than this — soon the electric shocks are going yield a monster, right? Or there’s some sort of Experimenter IS the experimented twist, right? No? Just Peter Sarsgaard in a 1960s suit for a while. Well, yeah, that’s maddening and that’s science, but it’s a far cry from mad science.
Real-life psychologist Stanley Milgram (Sarsgaard) was interested in what made the Nazis tick. Assuming most Nazi soldiers were men and not the literal personification of evil brought to life, he asked, “How could normal men arbitrarily inflict pain on other men without a sense of morality overcoming a sense of duty?” Turns out, the answer is “easily,” which is disturbing, yet obvious in retrospect – given what we know now. Ashamed to say, yeah, I’d probably do it, too. So would you.
Experimenter collects two subjects, a teacher and a student. What the “teacher” doesn’t know is the student is in on the gag. Every time the student fails to answer a question correctly, the teacher administers an increasingly more potent shock. The student is hidden from view, but his cries of pain are audible. When the teacher questions, the lab technician in the room urges continuance, absolving the teacher of responsibility and insisting the research continue for the sake of science. At some point in the experiment, the student stops responding altogether; the teacher is obliged to take a non-response as a wrong answer. This is where the film works; yeah, you might guess the mechanics and the ruse, but the recreated science is quite fascinating.
Why would someone continue to administer pain to a man pleading for you to stop?
A. The sense of duty is greater than the sense of responsibility.
B. It is easier to follow an authoritative voice than a pleading one.
C. Peer pressure
D. Science!
I’m sorry; that was a wrong answer. ZZZZZZZZAP!
And then the film takes a nosedive. Winona Ryder shows up for no discernable reason and the rest is about Milgram trying to get people to take his research seriously. Experimenter seemed more interested than anything else in making sure we knew that Stanley Milgram’s work was important and still applicable. That doesn’t seem good enough reason to torture me. Past the experimental stage, Experimenter is expendable – there’s not a memorable thought or shot in the entire last hour. And Kellan Lutz, seriously, how can you not do a reasonable William Shatner? My cat
can do William Shatner.
I’m not sure if it was character choice or personal quirk, but Peter Sarsgaard hunches for the majority of this film; he also wears an absurd moustacheless beard for the latter half. Adding his natural baggy eyes and tendency to mumble, Peter has officially eclipsed beyond leading man material. I’m hoping that never happens again.
Wouldn’t it have been better if this whole movie were an experiment on Stanley Milgram? See, he administers the discovery that men will be cruel at the expense of the weak only to discover that he, himself, has been the subject all along and cruelly toyed with in the name of science? I guess that didn’t happen in real life, but the screenplay would have been better.
♪It’s cruelty devotion
They’re making me torture a geek
First apply the lotion
Flip a switch and shock the meek
Mm, he’s blinded by his science!
And failed pop psychology
When I create a thesis
He’s blinded by his science, science
I can smell the PhD
He’s blinded by his science, science♫
Rated PG-13, 98 Minutes
D: Michael Almereyda
W: Michael Almereyda
Genre: Science!
Type of person most likely to enjoy this film: Stanley Milgram
Type of person least likely to enjoy this film: Teens hoping for a horror film
♪ Parody inspired by “She Blinded Me with Science”
