Orson Welles has referred to his approach for “Citizen Kane” as “prismatic”, and while there are many differences in topic and style from that cinema landmark to Michael Almeria’s “Experimenter”, these two films have a shared multi layered formal gameplaying as well as an intellectual weight that makes them equally powerful, fresh and creative. Part of the latter quality comes from their men, one of whom is semi fictional and the other one real, who look at American history from certain points in time while, just like prisms, refracting elements of culture and national identity.
The recent American film “Experimenter” focuses on Dr. Stanley Milgram, who was the subject of an American social psychologist’s experiments. Peter Sarsgaard’s portrayal of Milgram is filled with layers of depth and his nuanced performance is commendable. The film begins with Milgram working at a Yale psych lab in 1961. He, along with an assistant, has two men stepping into a separate room while a two way mirror watches them. In this experiment, there is a Learner, and a Teacher. The Learner is required to memorize answers to standardized tests, and once he is out of sight, the Teacher is allowed to monitor the responses he was given. With every wrong answer, the Teacher is supposed to increase the strength of shocks given to the Learner.
The nominal experiment being carried out over here is a fake one. Learner is not subjected to any shock; instead, he uses his vocal cords to scream while the tape is being recorded and plays the audio of it during the experiment. The person under examination is Teacher. How far will he be willing to go on shocking a complete stranger who is screaming for help? A significant amount of people claim they will indeed stop shocking the person before maximum intensity. But it appeared that both Milgram’s initial tests and a large number of repetitions of them showed that close to sixty-five percent of all subjects present continued to add the shocks until it was switched off, only thirty-five percent did stop at some period before.
Now, as they moved forward, American televisions had on their screens the trial of the Nazi genocide Adolf Eichmann, who claimed that he was only following orders. Milgram, the son of European Jews who escaped the Nazi terror, wanted to know how people could choose to act in a manner that went against all conscious principles. Could other people from different nations, even Americans, also submit to do the same things that Germans did? The findings which shocked the world were revealed in his book titled ‘Obedience to Authority’.
Finally, and most importantly for my focus, the trial against Adolf Eichmann was opened, which in a sense, connects the Holocaust to the time of “The Manchurian Candidate” when Americans were doubting their sanity as they were at war with their communist enemies and an academic-scientific-military complex had to deal with their issues. It goes without saying, the complex has not disappeared with the Soviet Union.
Future: When Milgram’s findings become known to the public, it captivates a wide range of audiences, and the film shows just that. Some people endorse it for its grandiose value while others criticize the scientist for not being ethical or being manual. Their significance remains. During the Vietnam conflict, they are brought up to justify the My Lai slaughter. Anyone still capture the footage of them? It is shared with West Point cadets at the moment. Is it really important to showcase their connection with the American violence or torture after September 11? Military or cultural? I don’t think so.
Going back to some of those footage at Yale labs, I am positive we would be kept in suspense for at least a lifetime regarding the experiment before one of the learners is shocked to the absolute maximum. However, Almeria removes the chance for any suspense and opens up from the start. These scenes are filmed with a cool touch, joining my personal points of view with the scientist and the filmmaker. Regardless, the effect is highly dramatic and the fact it is not striking makes it darkly comedic, how curious Amercians are.
In the beginning, Almereyda juxtaposes the Milgram meeting with the dancer who happens to be his wife, played by Winona Ryder. This is evidence that hints the movie “Experimenter” would not solely focus on the work, but also the man behind it. It can’t be denied that this biopic isn’t the typical type. It appears to be uninterested in exploring the mind of Milgram, or in this case, why Milgram performed those tests. And, indeed, the wife-and family-related sections of the film have a more or less negative purpose because rather than clarifying anything, they simply inform us that he was a relatively average human being.
In the end, Almereyda’s focus is on the work and public life of his subject, as well. After the famous experiments and the Milgram sequel book, he becomes something of a public intellectual figure, becomes controversial, relocates to Harvard, then City University of NY, and invents additional human behavior experiments, some of which are quite good, although none of them became as popular as these. As his career goes further on, it becomes clear how much the academic-scientific-military industrial complex overlaps with the imagination of the nation on several cultural aspects. Milgram himself appears on television. He is a participant in “Candid Camera.” He sees how CBS makes a cheap TV movie from his work “The Tenth Level,” featuring William Shatner and Ossie Davis.
The shot of such sheer monstrosity being shot is rare, which is why Milgram seems so emphases to the camera of his work. Whenever he thinks of transforming his work into a Broadway musical, he energetically sings out loud in midtown. This all points to one of the film’s major joys; its strikingly motley range of formal strategies and narrative techniques. Almereyda has Milgram’s character directly talk to the camera a great deal, for instance when he is telling us about things that he has not done yet. He includes different surrealistic elements like numerous of distancing techniques. Catching the tone of the film is just as difficult as the use of different styles. The director submerges from serious to satirical to whimsical to pensive and back to serious – sometimes within one scene.
One unifying theme that begs exploration is the question of free will. Milgram’s experiments do have an upside, as one of his mentors is keen to point out they reveal that at least some members of the population are capable of withstanding socially imposed restraints. So, why not try and build a better educational system and society and increase that proportion? Additionally, while one could argue that most people enjoy being manipulated by films, what about the merits of the production “Experimenter,” which, while keeping the emotionally charged focus of the audience low and layering evidence of the subject, allows us to build the interpretation ourselves?
That kind of foresight can only be given by a specific selection of artists. And Almeredya is a productive and articulate instance. From the outset, it was evident that Almeredya is a highly talented director. He could have been sucked into the commercial film-making culture like so many gifted directors, but instead, he is intentionally positioned at the highly intelligent periphery of the system. He has done everything from documentaries to shorts to contemporary adaptations of Shakespeare to what can only be described as experimental.
To watch more movies like (Experimenter (2015)) visit 123Movies.
Also Watch for more movies like:
