1961, Dr. Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment in Yale University, inviting volunteers who were then conditioned to act as a teacher administering incrementally increasing electric shocks punishment to an erroneous learner. Then we sometimes skip to when Stanley meets his wife Sasha. At the experiment, most subjects expressed anxiety but most of them went through to the maximum punishment to administer. Stanley explained the experiment to one subject, which was to learn about Obedience to Authority. Stanley explains his drive behind the experiment. Sasha visited Yale and with Stanley she saw the one instance a subject refuses to deliver the shocks, just because he knows about electrics. The experiment's script variations didn't change the conclusion. Stanley then tells about his thesis overseer Solomon Asch, who did the famous lines experiment.
1963, the experiment is published in a scientific journal and Stanley started work at Harvard with Paul Hollander. Some people show their disagreement to Stanley's method's in the experiment, that he tricked the subjects, that those methods are unethical. Negative reviews turns up in news papers. Then he had to explain himself when a harsh critic surfaced in a scientific journal. Stanley did a less controversial Small World Problem experiment A friend encourages Stanley to replicate the experiment in Europe to see different results, but Stanley has already sunk in Harvard as his work garnered many harsh critics. 1974, Stanley got to be CUNY's head of Social Psychology Department, and had already had two kids with Sasha. His book based on the experiment got published and he got invited on TV, still gaining harsh critics.
The experiment showed 65% of the subject obeyed malevolent authority despite showing anxiety and even disagreement about it. Stanley did another experiment about The Familiar Stranger. A TV producer George Bellak approaches Stanley about making a drama about the experiment, but it turns out that he only got consultation fee, as opposed to selling rights about his publication; due to the drama is a fictional work about the experiment. Sasha got upset about the fee. Once on break at the scene, Stanley had the chance to chat with the actors; where one of shared him his experience as a proof Stanley's experiment. In 1984 Stanley's book gained much attention, resulted in him being invited to teach around the world. But Stanley died that year due to a heart attack.
The movie tells about the life of the scientist who conducted the experiment, with adequate emphasis on the controversial experiment itself. Being so, the movie did enough justice between its own title about the person, and the importance of the experiment's conclusion. It's nice that the movie has Stanley explaining many of the experiments' mechanics, parameters and conclusions. The main spotlight on the Obedience to Authority gets the nice dose of dramatization; getting revisited from time to time without having to be to dramatic.
The other experiments Stanley did that were covered in this movie are also interesting, although less controversial. Many of those experiments, especially the ones which depended on mail, are going to be difficult to replicate today due to the advancement of the digital technology and the development of social mingling in the world today.
The artistic technicalities also drew my interest even more to the movie besides the main focus about the experiment. First is the way Stanley explain things by "breaking the fourth wall" as he speaks directly to the camera. This narration is done mostly with the background in motion, but at times we can also see that the background sort of pauses until Stanley stops talking. Then the way the movie used old-school patchy green screen on many different scenes is surely interesting. These make one wonder what those scenes have in common to have those different treatments.
Unfortunately, the acting work in overall is just a little bit above the standard. Peter Sarsgaard did a so-so performance as Stanley Milgram. He depicted the mannerisms for a scientist quite well and logical, but the face expressions should be improved. Even a rigid scientist will show a happy face when he's with his family and feeling happy. Winona Ryder did also just enough, although I think that her role didn't really have much significance to begin with for her to show her real abilities. It's nice to see familiar faces like Anton Yelchin, John Leguizamo, Taryn Manning and even Vondie Curtis-Hall, taking small parts. It makes one wonder who else that will show next.
I say that the movie deserves a 7 out of 10 score. A recommendation only goes for you who enjoy biopics or gets interested to learn about human nature. I feel this movie is quite entertaining because it presented the person and the experiment through quite an interesting way.
1963, the experiment is published in a scientific journal and Stanley started work at Harvard with Paul Hollander. Some people show their disagreement to Stanley's method's in the experiment, that he tricked the subjects, that those methods are unethical. Negative reviews turns up in news papers. Then he had to explain himself when a harsh critic surfaced in a scientific journal. Stanley did a less controversial Small World Problem experiment A friend encourages Stanley to replicate the experiment in Europe to see different results, but Stanley has already sunk in Harvard as his work garnered many harsh critics. 1974, Stanley got to be CUNY's head of Social Psychology Department, and had already had two kids with Sasha. His book based on the experiment got published and he got invited on TV, still gaining harsh critics.
The experiment showed 65% of the subject obeyed malevolent authority despite showing anxiety and even disagreement about it. Stanley did another experiment about The Familiar Stranger. A TV producer George Bellak approaches Stanley about making a drama about the experiment, but it turns out that he only got consultation fee, as opposed to selling rights about his publication; due to the drama is a fictional work about the experiment. Sasha got upset about the fee. Once on break at the scene, Stanley had the chance to chat with the actors; where one of shared him his experience as a proof Stanley's experiment. In 1984 Stanley's book gained much attention, resulted in him being invited to teach around the world. But Stanley died that year due to a heart attack.
The movie tells about the life of the scientist who conducted the experiment, with adequate emphasis on the controversial experiment itself. Being so, the movie did enough justice between its own title about the person, and the importance of the experiment's conclusion. It's nice that the movie has Stanley explaining many of the experiments' mechanics, parameters and conclusions. The main spotlight on the Obedience to Authority gets the nice dose of dramatization; getting revisited from time to time without having to be to dramatic.
The other experiments Stanley did that were covered in this movie are also interesting, although less controversial. Many of those experiments, especially the ones which depended on mail, are going to be difficult to replicate today due to the advancement of the digital technology and the development of social mingling in the world today.
The artistic technicalities also drew my interest even more to the movie besides the main focus about the experiment. First is the way Stanley explain things by "breaking the fourth wall" as he speaks directly to the camera. This narration is done mostly with the background in motion, but at times we can also see that the background sort of pauses until Stanley stops talking. Then the way the movie used old-school patchy green screen on many different scenes is surely interesting. These make one wonder what those scenes have in common to have those different treatments.
Unfortunately, the acting work in overall is just a little bit above the standard. Peter Sarsgaard did a so-so performance as Stanley Milgram. He depicted the mannerisms for a scientist quite well and logical, but the face expressions should be improved. Even a rigid scientist will show a happy face when he's with his family and feeling happy. Winona Ryder did also just enough, although I think that her role didn't really have much significance to begin with for her to show her real abilities. It's nice to see familiar faces like Anton Yelchin, John Leguizamo, Taryn Manning and even Vondie Curtis-Hall, taking small parts. It makes one wonder who else that will show next.
I say that the movie deserves a 7 out of 10 score. A recommendation only goes for you who enjoy biopics or gets interested to learn about human nature. I feel this movie is quite entertaining because it presented the person and the experiment through quite an interesting way.