What does this film want us to believe?
How exactly does this film convince us of that belief?
How does this film exploit gaps in our perception to slant our conclusions in its favor?
Be sure to use specific examples (i.e., shots, cuts, sequences, etc.) in your comments.
-This film wants us to believe the "truth" of the brutality and inhumane actions toward inmates in the Massachusetts Correctional Facility at Bridgewater.
ReplyDelete-The film convinces us of the above "truth" by exposing the facility from a variety of angles. For example, in the very beginning of the film we saw the men stripped down to their skin and forced to walk about and be filmed. One can see the shame in some of the faces of the men being filmed nude, some stare at the camera in fear or disbelief, some hide their faces, and others simply do as they are told with a sort of numbness to the entire situation.
-The film exploits gaps in our perception by the use of cuts and transitions in its favor. For instance, when the man who wouldn't eat was force-fed with a feeding tube, we were bombarded with short, almost flickering shots of an obviously dead man who turned out to be the same man. In the course of the filming of that movie, this man died. Before he died, he was filmed lying on a table---crying---while two men shoved a feeding tube up his nose. By putting two-and-two together the audience could easily assume that this man had died as a result of his treatment at the facility. Another example is the way they transitioned between the darkest moments in the film and the lighter moments, for example, after the man died and was shoved into his casket, we see an inmate birthday party which was probably supposed to be considered a "happy" moment. However, this birthday party was absolutely depressing, not even qualifying as bittersweet, just simply bitter.
'Titicut Follies' wants us to believe that the correctional facility is run by a staff that is corrupt and mistreating the patients. By jump cutting from a shot of, for example, the patient being fed via a tube down his nose straight to a dead body, we are shocked. It is this shock and viewing one extreme and immediately another that intensifies what we are seeing and makes us associate the two events. These seemingly linked events could be completely unrelated if not for the subject being the same. While the staff and doctors force-feeding this patient through his nose are vilified, we must stop and acknowledge that we have no idea what this patient's situation is. We have no idea why he is a patient at the facility or why he refuses to eat. However, tube-feeding is still used at modern institutions when necessary. Would it be more humane to ignore him and let him starve himself? The staff is certainly guilty of mistreating patients, however I do not believe this is one of those times. It is crude footage and difficult to watch, but suicide is illegal even today and there aren't many alternative options to feeding. By exploiting the gaps in our knowledge of the actual situation of the patients, we are shown emaciated men and thus have pity on them. They appear to be mocked, mistreated, and falsely imprisoned in some cases. But, we have no understanding of the staff's past interactions with these particular patients, nor what the patients behavior could have warranted.
ReplyDeleteThe film does indeed leave out past experiences, it would be impossible to include everything that goes on at the institute, but I do not think that there could be any omitted information that would excuse how the patients were being treated. I think that the film's 'truth,' of patients being mistreated, in this case actually is the truth outside the borders of the film. One might say that the film only shows us the bad and therefore is exploiting our emotions to feel pity for the subjects and to feel hate or disgust towards the guards and workers. This may be true, there are not many happy times in the film, but I think that perhaps even if the scenes in the film were the worst events at the facility that they are still extremely inappropriate and in violation of human rights. The sequences of the patients being processed was perhaps one of the most humiliating examples of the guards abuse, but certainly not the worst example of abuse. The shaving scene was again one where the guards showed no regard to the man's mental disability, this time by repeatedly asking him the same question, and laughed at his frustration. This is inexcusable behavior no matter who the man was or what his history with the guards was. Finally of course the tube feeding scene is the most memorable and most disturbing due to the cuts back and forth to him barely alive being force fed and to when he is deceased being prepared for his funeral. These cuts make the viewer believe that his death was a direct result of the mistreatment at the facility, where it was probably of his own doing by refusing to eat. But this leads to the question of why he was refusing to eat? It could have been a suicide due to the treatment, the audience will never know his actual cause of death, but Wiseman certainly gets his point across in this scene. He uses emotions to appeal to the audience throughout the film and make his point clear but could the events shown in "Titicut Follies" be interpreted any other way?
ReplyDeleteThe film cuts from shot to shot, only allowing us to see the horrors of the facility. By showing the bad things that happened to the people inside, they make us believe the place was run by people who didn't care about others. The correction facility was supposed to be for individuals who had committed crimes, and weren't mentally stable. Bridgewater was supposed to help, but in the end, they only killed their patients. That wasn't enough for them, they let people film it, and put on a show. The film showed great insight on what places like that did in the past, which was sad to see.
ReplyDeleteThe film showed us what it wanted us to see. Each shot that was taken was of the harm the caregivers were giving. In my opinion, not everyone there was as cold-hearted as they were made out to be. The feeding tube shot was the most epic, because of the fact they forced the guy to eat.The next shot skipped to him laying in a coffin. The film leaves it up to our imagination on what happened. How did he die? That is how our perception is used to fill in pieces of the story.
Throughout the film, it shows other patients who are mistreated. It also shows a couple of that were treated fairly. The film doesn't really concentrate on those that weren't being abused, it just concentrates on those that were. For example, the psychotherapist treated the guy with paranoia with respect, because it shows he listened to the guy,whether he believed him or not. Another example would be the guy taking a bath; nothing bad happened to him. The caregivers were nice to that guy,telling him to not drink the water, and trying to help him get clean.
The film was supposed to shine light on how the facility was run, and i believe it was just from one point of view. I'm not saying this was a bad movie, I just feel that there was more to it than the film showed us.
I have to first state: Throughout the entire movie all I could thing was how I completely DESPISED it. However, upon finishing the movie I fell in love with it. The film was absolutely incredible, but down right brutal to watch at the same time.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I’ll address the questions at hand.
-What does this film want us to believe?
I believe we can all agree on the idea that one of the major goals of the film was to enlighten us as the viewers of the atrocities committed at Bridgewater. However, “atrocities” could be seen as a matter of opinion. The director showed us what he wanted us to see.
-How exactly does this film convince us of that belief?
The director shows many scenes of mistreatment of mentally ill patients. (The feeding tube incident, the shaving and cutting incident, the “clean room” harassment incident, etc. etc.)
-How does this film exploit gaps in our
perception to slant our conclusions in its favor?
Like Sanna said: “The film exploits gaps in our perception by the use of cuts and transitions in its favor.” I couldn’t have said it better. I personally believe that the director wanted us to see the "truth" so to speak, without showing us all of "the facts". By cutting to a new scene, or transitioning into another “story”, the director could be using these cuts and transitions to prevent us as the viewers from seeing the whole picture. Like we mentioned in class, for all we know when the guy was cut while being shaved, there could have been caretakers behind the scenes trying to help. However, because we didn’t see them (the scene cuts to another), we are left to believe that they couldn’t care less that he was bleeding.
The film jumps from “good” scenes to “bad scenes”, lightly put. In all honesty, I can’t remember the order of most of the scenes, yet many do stand out (even out of order).t The rambler was extremely entertaining, as sick as that may sound, and we watched him spurt out nonsense for a few minutes. We also see the cutest little old man singing entirely out of tune with a woman on the television as he then wiggles his ears. These are both light hearted scenes, despite the two men are mentally ill. But, we then see a sickly looking man who refuses to eat being FORCED to eat. This scene then cuts to a casket, and then back to the feeding tube. Thus by putting two and two together, we can assume the living and the dead are the same guy. We see the TRUTH that he died, but we do not see the FACTS as to how he died. We can assume as viewers that he died because of mistreatment on the facility’s behalf, but for all we know he could have died from a disease, or cancer.
I have to first state: Throughout the entire movie all I could thing was how I completely DESPISED it. However, upon finishing the movie I fell in love with it. The film was absolutely incredible, but down right brutal to watch at the same time.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I’ll address the questions at hand.
-What does this film want us to believe?
I believe we can all agree on the idea that one of the major goals of the film was to enlighten us as the viewers of the atrocities committed at Bridgewater. However, “atrocities” could be seen as a matter of opinion. The director showed us what he wanted us to see.
-How exactly does this film convince us of that belief?
The director shows many scenes of mistreatment of mentally ill patients. (The feeding tube incident, the shaving and cutting incident, the “clean room” harassment incident, etc. etc.)
-How does this film exploit gaps in our perception to slant our conclusions in its favor?
Like Sanna said: “The film exploits gaps in our perception by the use of cuts and transitions in its favor.” I couldn’t have said it better. I personally believe that the director wanted us to see the "truth" so to speak, without showing us all of "the facts". By cutting to a new scene, or transitioning into another “story”, the director could be using these cuts and transitions to prevent us as the viewers from seeing the whole picture. Like we mentioned in class, for all we know when the guy was cut while being shaved, there could have been caretakers behind the scenes trying to help. However, because we didn’t see them (the scene cuts to another), we are left to believe that they couldn’t care less that he was bleeding.
The film jumps from “good” scenes to “bad scenes”, lightly put. In all honesty, I can’t remember the order of most of the scenes, yet many do stand out (even out of order).t The rambler was extremely entertaining, as sick as that may sound, and we watched him spurt out nonsense for a few minutes. We also see the cutest little old man singing entirely out of tune with a woman on the television as he then wiggles his ears. These are both light hearted scenes, despite the two men are mentally ill. But, we then see a sickly looking man who refuses to eat being FORCED to eat. This scene then cuts to a casket, and then back to the feeding tube. Thus by putting two and two together, we can assume the living and the dead are the same guy. We see the TRUTH that he died, but we do not see the FACTS as to how he died. We can assume as viewers that he died because of mistreatment on the facility’s behalf, but for all we know he could have died from a disease, or cancer.
All in all, this is what I can think of right now. I’ll be sure to read the rest of the comments and post my second post later.
I watched this movie in horror of the treatment these inmates were subjected to. Then more horror crept in as I realize that these actions still go on today some of them even "legally". I believe that Mr. Wiseman set out to convince us of the inhuman treatment of another human being. In 1967 a lot of human rights did not abound escpecially for the mentally ill. I questions some of the older inmates that were in there. Could they have been suffering from some sort of dementia or Alzheimer's and some of the younger could have had autism. All of which we know something about today but not as much back then.
ReplyDeleteI believe that one way he shows this is by using black and white film. It shows the starkness of the rooms. The hues of grays make the film even more depressing. What would we have thought had the film been in color? It may have made the film to bright and his point would be diminished somewhat.
I looked up the film on Google the title of the film came from the talent show the facility would put on once a year. A highlight for the inmates. You get to see the lighter version of the sisnister workings of the correctional institution. I particularly liked the birthday party shot where the nurse pulls out a letter and states that some do get better and that is what keeps her going. Of course when listening you figure out this man was an alcoholic and that was where many alcoholics wound up back then was in a mental
institution. But there is no crime in drinking so why was he even sent to a Correctional institution?
I am going to be honest I did not watch the tube feeding scenes that closely. I did see the casket and recognized it was the same man. My question was why did they wait three days to feed him. It had been three days and they just decide hey for shits and giggles let us feed the "inmate" for the film cameras. If the film maker had not been there would he have died from starvation.
The scene where they put them man in his room and they ask him if he is going to keep his room clean and he said yes. I looked in that room for the toilet pot. We saw earlier in the film the inmates carrying out there pots to empty, he didn't have a pot. We didn't see his room before they put him back in there. Did he have to stay in his own filth? How do they expect these people to keep there cell clean? The man taking a bath drinking his own filthy water and saying it tasted like champagne. The guards are all laughing. The gaps I like to believe were the worst of the worst. That all they were allowed to shoot were the more humane parts.
You did see the outside yard. These were the inmates who were compliant and did what they were told to. Some of the inmates seemed happy and content probably to much thorazine.
Overall the movie was very disturbing. The inmates being tormented. The starkness of the institution and the barness made the film seem even less humane.
What I got out of this film is what I already believe to be true. People who are mentally ill don't have a chance in this world when they are put into facilities like the one on the film we watched. I must say the film seemed a bit over the top. Some of the shots in this film were very disgusting to see that I had to turn away because it made me sick to look at. To me, there was a lot of nudity that really grossed me out but scenes like that keep a lot of people's attention. For the most part, I believe the idea was to allow the audience to see the reality of what really goes on with the mentally ill and how the people who care for them have no feeling for human rights.
ReplyDeleteI got a lot out of this movie because it shows us how mentally ill used to be treated and how some of them are treated today. The movie wants us to believe that all people in mental institutions have major problems and dont know anything. I think just because you are ill doesn't mean you dont know anything. For example the shot when Jim was being shaved and the guards cut him, he didnt say anything. He was smart enough not to fight back with them and also not to fight with the guards when they were taunting him. This movie uses gaps in our perception to make us think everyone in Bridgewater was unintelligent. The movie only shows the mentally ill that don't know anything or that don't really talk. I think their are a lot of people that have mental problems but are still very intelligent and know everything that is happening at Bridgewater.
ReplyDeleteThe transitions from the patients being well to death was horrifying because it makes you see that once people go into the mental hospitals they generally dont come back out. I think it is terrible to realize that this is still somewhat true today and these people that are ill just have no shot of doing anything with their lives.
In this film the director chooses his shots very carefully to show his viewers the lack of humane structure of the mental correction facilities of his time. Wiseman does this by continually shocking the viewers with scenes of terrible mistreatment. Also Wiseman chooses scenes to build sympathy for the inmates. He does this by showing us the old man singing, the man in the bath tub, and other scenes showing the inmates innocense.
ReplyDeleteThis innocense that is percieved by the viewer is all intentional from the gaps the director gives us. When shooting a larger room, the director would also find a person the audience would feel for the most, and zoom in to where that person is all the viewers would see. The viewers havent seen any reasons for the facility being so harsh, but they may be many instances where the treatment seems necessary. Instead all we see is continual mistreatment. This seems to insist the "patients" are not there to be treated, they are only there to serve a sentence separated from the "normal" inmates.
While it is incredibly depressing to see what mentally ill patients were subjected to, we also have to remember that this was a correctional facility for the criminally insane. Not simply the mentally ill, but the mentally ill who had been dangerous to society at some point. While this does not excuse many of the actions taken by the staff, I personally believe that there was not much other alternative in several situations. Would it be viewed as more humane if the staff themselves had bathed the man drinking his bath water? The film precisely shows the bleak reality involving incurable mental diseases. However, it does not represent simply mentally ill people being mistreated, but criminals that most likely would never be rehabilitated to the point of being released. Bearing the probable hopelessness of the situation in mind, did the staff really have so many other options? As criminals that are unfit for society, their free will had, indeed, been taken away. In any rehabilitation facility, an anorexic patient that refuses to eat will be tube fed. The priority is that the patient is kept alive until they are mentally healthy enough to choose to eat on their own. It would have been pure neglect for the staff not to feed a man who could have been too mentally ill to even understand his need to eat. They asked him if he would eat on his own before the tube was administered. While this is one of the most difficult shots to watch, it is important to truly consider exactly why it is so difficult to watch. To me, the sadness of watching an elderly man with so little hope of freedom being force fed is utterly depressing. As for the staff, they are not responsible for this mournful reality check.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this does not apply to verbally harassing the patients, such as the 'clean room' shot. There is clear cut inappropriate conduct that takes place and a severe lack of professionalism in multiple scenes. The lack of sensitivity and laughing at the expense of the inmates was incredibly frustrating and offensive. This is a moving and eye opening film, but the most memorable shots seem to be the most manipulated and slanted.
After reading everyone's comments, everyone seems to agree that the facility was very abusive. My favorite quote, which I find true is, "People who are mentally ill don't have a chance in this world when they are put into facilities like the one on the film we watched. The film proved that.
ReplyDeleteI still believe that there were, no matter the circumstances, better ways to treat these people. Including the feeding tube, there had to be a more comfortable way to do that for the person that refused to eat. Also just because they were found criminally insane does not necessarily mean that they did anything wrong or knew that what they were doing was wrong. The early judicial system did not usually find in favor of the defendant if they were deemed insane, whether they were guilty or not. The guards treated the patients at times like animals and to me that will never be excusable no matter what other information was hidden from the audiences eyes.
ReplyDeleteThis film wants us to believe that the mental patients at the facility were being mistreated. It does this through its many different shots and sequences thoughout. For example, when the man whose face was cut while being shaved was pestered by the guards, he was driven to a point of pure rage. I believe him and many others could have improved their condition if only the facility treated its patients better.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the man who was tube fed is perceived to be the dead man whose shot is placed in between this sequence of brutal force feeding. We use our imaginations and intellect to assume both men are the same. The whole film uses this strategy of leaving open spaces for the viewer to create in his or her mind. That is why although the film wants to show the inhumanity of the facility, only the audience makes that perception true.
This film wants the audience to believe that mental patients are treated very wrong or not even treated at all.
ReplyDeleteThe film conviences the audience of its point by showing many of the patience being miss treated. The director uses XCU in many of the shots to make sure the audience doesnt miss an important detail in the shot. Such as when Jim is being shaved and gets cut, the camera does an XCU on his face to show the blood and that the guards dont seem to care. Also, in the shot of a man taking a bath, all you see is his face when he starts drinking the dirty bath water.
The film uses gaps in the audiences perception to slant our perception to the films belief. This is used when the film cuts from a scene of the man being force fed, to him dead. The audience does not know what the reason of his death is but we assume that he died due to the result of his mistreatment. Also, the direct uses this method during the shot of a man being buried in a cheap, thin coffin; to a happy birthday party.
This film was very different from any other movies I have ever seen. Even though I did not enjoy it very much, it was still very informative.
Just as people above have stated, the film wants us to believe that the Bridgewater facility is corrupted and immoral and takes advantage of the inmates. Wiseman illustrates this cruel “reality” by showing scenes where
ReplyDeleteinmates are violated or mistreated. But, as Sanna stated, the film’s gaps exploit our perception by the use of cuts and transitions in its favor. Is this really the reality of Bridgewater, or are we just seeing the reality
that Wiseman wants us to see? For me when I walked out from watching this film I did believe that what was shown was the truth , just as Pamela Devonport said above. Mentally ill and elderly have been mistreated for years, because they can't stick up for themselves or fight back. But as Phitubbes also says, the mentally ill don't really have a chance at a good life anyways, so whose really doing the harm? The officers that watch over, take care, and maybe abuse their powers a little, or the mentally ill who have actually hurt and injured people?
Titicut Follies was a difficult film for me to follow . It goes from scene to scene without showing the beginning or ending and confuses the viewer. Maybe this was the director's objective, to show confusion. It starts on a happy note, the men of the institution are putting on a show for people and singing and dancing. You think that this movie is going to be light-hearted, but once the singing is over the movie starts to cut to close-ups of empty and weary expressions and shifts the mood from light-hearted to cold and emotionless. In the
scene where the men are stripped down bare, Wiseman is implying that the inmates at the facility are being stripped of their dignity. By showing this scene he wants you to see the mistreatment of mentally ill and feel pity on them and their situation. These graphic and deeply disturbing images were tough for me to watch, and probably for a majority of people.
It brings up so many questions about the loss of dignity for the powerless inmates in these institutions such as this.
I agree with most of the posted comments. But I still see Wiseman showing a reality that is in fact real. Otherwise why would the state of Massachusetts work so hard to keep the film from being released. Wiseman has done other films of this ilk showing what most people would rather not know about.
ReplyDeleteHe makes you think outside of yourself. Mentally ill "prisoners" of that time frame may not have done anything "wrong". They could have just been wandering the streets and could not answer the questions asked by the police. Just because someone is mentally ill does not mean that they can not contribute to society. It certainly doesn't mean that they have to be subject to the treatment that they were. What if Jim wanted to die instead of being kept in the confines of those walls? He chose to stop eating. We really were not told of any of the circumstances that the prisoners were held on except for one of child molestation. There are alot of questions left unanswered and they never will be. The film was censored for over 20 years what does that say about the truth behind the film.
I still believe that the filming of this movie in black and white made the starkness and depravity stand out more. The humor in this film is as dark as the treatment of the inmates. I also feel like they used the best of the best for the talent show. The talent show was for the families and staff of the faciltiy. So in all you get to see the best and worst of the inmates.
Does Wiseman get the effect that he is wanting? What is he wanting to say? Is he violating the inmates as much as the prison itself? By using the XCU and getting in the prisoner's face or not respecting the fact that some of these men do feel some type of emotion and self-respect by trying to turn away or cover their penises? Is Wiseman above reproach?
Even though it may seem the main goal of this film is to show the cruelties that took place at the institution, I believe another message was present. Despite all the atrocities, many good things came from this institution. The shots at the beginning and end of the film showed the inmates dancing, singing, and enjoying themselves. During this era, I doubt mentally challenged people had an opportunity to experience performing on stage like they did. Also, the shots of the man drinking the bathwater portray kindness. The guards tried to prevent the man from continuing to drink the filthy water. The film shows the viewer all of the bad that occurs to alter our take on what may have really happened. Hence, the guards did not have to do anything morally correct for the patients, but they chose to do so. Overall, the goodness from the institution may have outweighed the evil.
ReplyDeleteIan, do you really think that the guards put on this show, seen at the beginning and end of the film, to benefit the patients or was it more of a mockery? And I absolutely think that the guards had an obligation as employees of the state to treat the patients morally correct. Therefore I completely disagree with you closing statement.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with blakewood; this institution degrades any person or family whom suffers of a mental instability. By the gaurds performing this performance for there community shows just how heartless they are. Reason behind this point, is that the act of them glamorizing there patients and having them preform was to show the facade of happy inmates. However, from this internal footage we can see that the treatment of these patients was inhumane and wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe men displayed in this institution are treated as rightless slaves. In this generation, society looks at the mentally challenged and seems confused. What I took from this movie, is that even challenged individuals can learn. The gaurds only saw vegtables in their cells and treated them like dogs. However,since society was scared of these insane individuals they labled it as good punishment. Furthermore, I believe Titicut Follies is a great inside look at real footage and real people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor and I also see the different perspective Ian illustrates. However, there is also evidence in the film of the cruelty to the inmates. For example, the guards make fun of the older man by constantly asking the same question in various ways; Will your stall be clean tomorrow? This agrivates the inmate while the guards continue their abuse. I take this as strong evidence to the abuse of the guards to the inmates. Also, another example is the shot where Jim is cut while being shaved. There was little care or sympathy shown for drawing blood. The guards were doing the very minimum of what was required of them, caring as little as possible for their charges.
ReplyDeleteIn Titicut Follies I believe that they want us to believe that even though we have these institutes wether be private or government ran these places can be just as corrupt, hateful, and secretive and your average person would not not know about unless the video came to be. I dont know who gave these people the right to do this but this film wanted us to know the truth, do something about it and be that someone so things like this wont repeat itself. In the movie its takes you through the beginning steps of being admitted and when you leave either being a free man or in a casket. So its easy to see the horrible things they do because its on the screen like when it shows the scene of the man in the room and it keeps flashing to him dead at some point and the people watching can put the 2 to 2 together. Also the film points in the favor of how bad this place is showing all the bad going on and when the people who worked there thought it would show some good but obviously not. They tried to show some good in the film with them dancing and singing but that was all just a front I feel to cover up whats really going on- Nick Hudson
ReplyDeleteTo begin, this movie was exactly NOT what I had expected it to be. "Titicut Follies" is the real deal, a no holds barred, "day in the life of" documentary, instead the polished piece of classical film I entered the class expecting to see. My reaction to the film is not unlike those that have posted above me I was disgusted and appealed at the mistreatment of the patients inside this institution. I could go on about how the guards were terrible, cruel, and unfair, but in the interest of... well, interest, I'd like to pose a question to hopefully (my grade needs it) keep this discussion rolling.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with most of the previous comments above, I cant help but wonder if everyone is viewing this film in terms that are too "black and white". The world, and all the controversial issues enclosed, is full of gray. While we as a people define some issues with sharp, black and white lines as to what is right and what isn't, other issues can only exist in the in-between, in the gray area. Does everyone here think that there can really be a RIGHT way to interpret this film? Granted, there are ways to interpret the things we saw in the light that the film maker intended us to, but in the end is that THE way it truly is? There are so many questions that this film raises, and I feel that there is no clear cut way to view it. Anyone agree? Disagree?
-In my opinion, I think the film wants us to believe that the inmates of an institution for the criminally insane are treated as nothing more second class citizens, and show ponies.
ReplyDelete-If in fact that is the case this film does a very good job of convincing us. One way it convinces us is by using quick transitions from shot to shot. A good example is when the man is getting force feed through a nose tube. You see him being mistreated like this and through out the whole process it shows you glimpses of him when he died. This leads you to believe that he died as a result of him gross mistreatment. Another way this film shows you the mistreatment of the inmates is through continuous shots. This is demonstrated when the guards continually badger a certain inmate about keeping his room clean.
The common assumption of mental institutions is that they are founded on the bedrock of rationality and order. Yet Wiseman ironically wants the viewers to believe that the institution is a place of chaos and absurdity. By his careful and clever editing results in the presentation, Wiseman convinces his viewers by fixing his steady gaze on abuse, neglect, medical ineptitude, and appalling conditions. Wiseman pulls no punches as he portrays the inhuman relationship between guards and inmates. For instances in one cut, as the guards are shaving Jim’s face, they continually ask him how clean his room is to the point of driving him mad, resulting in him screaming, then Jim, naked, shuffles down the hallway, bleeding from the mouth. In this cut Wiseman portrays the guards as bullies who have their victims pinned and helpless. Another inmate is force-fed through a tube in his nose, with a cross-cut of the preparation of the same man’s dead body. One of the most frightening moments in the film is when there is a prisoner who insists he is not crazy, claiming his medications are harming him. The board ignores his concerns about the medication and increase the amount to tone down his behavior. Wiseman’s statement on the inhumanity of the system is clear throughout the film, but is it really possible to come to any other conclusion?
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of evidence directed to the idea that the behavior of guards to the inmates was cruel. Much of what has previously mentioned is all accurate but we also must consider the cinematography and technology used in the film that help emphasis our beliefs. Having a black and white movie in general, gives off a depressing feeling as well. Color enhances feelings and emotion. There was a lot of extreme close up (ECU) shots that made the shots feel like an investigation or confrontation. Most of the light in the film came from outside of various windows which furthers the feeling of a cage or prison cell. There were quite a few jump cuts as well that left the audience feeling unsettled. With these points we can easily see how our portrayal of some scenes are determined based on the cinematography of the film itself.
ReplyDeleteI think this film wanted to show the disgusing treatment of the patients at the Bridgewater Correctional Facility. I feel it trys to illict feelings like sadness,anger and helplessness of the viewer to try to connect with the inmmates feelings, or at least how the director wants us to believe they feel. These feelings are portrayed through cuts like the beginning shot of the inmates jovially singing in what looked like to be a variety show to the heartless treatment of the naked inmates. A lot of the movie took me off guard and was confusing at times as to what one was suppose to get out of a particular shot or cut. As stated before the shot of the man who would not eat and thus was force fed through his nose and then it cut to him dead and back to him being fed. It was shot in a way that made one believe their negligence was the cause of his death versus the inmates refusal to eat. Another scene that stood out to me was when inmate Jim was being shaved and was cut by the razor. Since many of us know how it feels to be cut accidently by a razor by our own doing,I think seeing someone cut by a razor by someone else made us all wince in pain. This pain i inadvertantly felt was not acknowledged by Jim who simply took the treatment. Then it cut to Jim in his cell naked and stomping and holding his injured face led me to believe he did in fact feel this act but because of the brutal treatment of the guards was too afraid to show they were hurting him. There were many gaps in the film which made us come to our own conclusions about what must have happened. An example would be how the inmates came to be in the institution in the first place. I noticed some of the inmates shown were mentally disable while others like the first inmate we are introduced to, was a sex offender. Was the naked "check in" scene just a preliminary procedure to being put in the institution? Was the variety show, voluntary or were these inmates forced to put on a minstrel show?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah Corkern with her point of the film's cinematography playing a role in the overall "feel" of the film. I don't mind watching films in black and white but it was hard for me to stay focused with this particular film. I think it was because there was a lot going on as far as cuts and shots and it was just overally eerie and depressing. I mean in the back of my mind while watching this film I was wondering where their families were and what the story behind each person was to have had it end in this institution. I was also curious about the guards and the nurses whom I believe didn't get to share their side of the story as much as we were allowed to make up one for them. A director is a storyteller, their biasness of an event is of course incorporated into their idea of the truth and what they want us to believe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kizer_Pearlfection7, in that I feel like there was a lot of this "story" left untold. Especially from the nurse's and guard's perspectives. While I don't at all condone the actions taken by either party throughout the course of the film, I can't help but wonder if there are aspects of the story we just aren't getting. The staff at the institution are painted as, and from what I can gather from previous comments, interpreted as, these sort of heartless "monsters" that just terrorize the patients. It seems that their goal is not to help, but rather to hinder.-- I just cant see that being entirely true. I think the film takes a slightly different hue when viewed from the perspective of those employed at the facility. Perhaps like we mentioned in class, the patients were unruly, had grated on the guards and nurses nerves, and you were seeing just the "bad". Maybe the tube feeding scene really was a last ditch effort to preserve the life of an individual in the "care" of the staffers. Who can really and truly know?
ReplyDeleteI think Wiseman used close ups to just show the audience one perspective and to show the mentally ill being abused. I think it would be interesting to see Bridgewater from the guards perspective. To see how they viewed the inmates and what it was like to bath inmates, give them feeding tubes, etc. We could see what jobs the guards did everyday and what it is like to work with these mentally ill patients.
ReplyDeleteThe guards in this documentary were portrayed as slightly cruel to the inmates in the film. For example the Jim shave scene. The guards shaved the patient known as Jim and this particular shot they cut jims face with the razor and just let the cut bleed until they rinsed his face off. From shots like this I believe that this documentary wants us to believe that inmates in mental institutions were mistreated by the faculty and guards that took care of them, which did in some cases lead to the death of some patients. For example the sequence where we see the orderlies/guards and doctor tube feeding a man who hasn’t eaten in three days, this man turns out to be the patient Jim, the man who was shaven. Throughout the entire sequence of the tube feeding, which was another example of the cruel treatment of the patients, there were subliminal flashes of a corpse being prepared and autopsy being preformed, on Jim. In retrospect their treatment of tube feeding didn't help and Jim ended up dieing. I believe that in this films case it can be said that it is the blind leading the blind in that documentary. The guards and staff are arrogant and close-minded and the patients have no clue either.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Hannah Corkren who stated that the guards were antagonizing the patients by prodding them with questions that made them uncomfortable. Her example of Jim and when the guards ask him if he is going to clean his room and how it incited a mental out lash from Jim, which was disturbing to see but the guards seemed to get a laugh out of it. I believe that this film is much in a since like the film 'One Flew Over the KooKoo's Nest' in the fact that the patients are being antagonized and the establishment that they are housed in and receiving treatment from is actually the opposite of therapeutic and is actually causing more harm and mental issues. In both cases the faculty of the institutions were to blame for their lack of professionalism and arrogance. Also it was very off setting to see clips of the staff and guards celebrating and singing on a stage with a banner that had the name of the film on it. It was almost like these employees were trying to shake off their day with a song.
ReplyDelete"Titicut Follies" definitely has a few messages within that really shows Fred Wiseman's agenda, one that was definitely a pioneer of the time period. The film shows much more than what is seen, Titicut Follies shows us as human beings how far we've came, and the knowledge through time, technology, and academia that we have gained. It definitely paints a very dark picture, but a picture that deserves a place in our memories nonetheless. This film challenged leading authority on dealing with the mentally ill individuals, and serves as a incredible benchmark now on how to not treat people. If we don't know our history, where we came from, and where we as mankind used to be, we are doomed to repeat it. "Titicut Follies" does not let us forget, it holds us accountable as the audience, and that is an incredible message. I could only imagine the impact this film had back in 1967.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Ashley Brinkso's thesis of the blind leading the blind. Fred Wiseman continually showed shots of cruelty of the inmates, and the detriment of the patients, even the doom of one in particular, Jim. This is not by coincidence, Wiseman had an agenda, and made sure to guide the audience in a persuasive manner, in such a way you couldn't help but feel anger towards the institution, and those who worked there. He presented a very dark diegesis, in which the guards and the institution itself definitely played the role of the antagonist.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has mentioned, Frederick Wiseman is definitely catering to the idea that the inmates/patients in these criminally insane mental health facilities were treated at a sub-human level. Whether or not past acts of criminal indecency warrant such behavior from the guards is never addressed. Wiseman simply shows you the situation at hand. As if to say "Who cares what these people have done or been through. This is what they are being put through now."
ReplyDeleteIt is undoubtedly a very harsh and intense movie to watch, and I can't even imagine all of the things that Wiseman edited out, or was forced to leave out.
We are never shown anything nice that happens inside (or outside) of the prison walls, so this gap in perception leads us to believe that nothing positive ever happens in these facilities. If that doesn't portray being damned to a Hell on Earth, then I'm not sure what does.
Not to mention the waste of talent that occurred inside of these prison hospitals. There was all of the musical interest from many of the inmates, particularly the sad trombone player Wiseman showed playing in the courtyard. As Blake had mentioned earlier, whenever the Titicut Follies were performing their talent show, it was more of a mockery of their existence, rather than a celebration or something for their own benefit.
ReplyDeleteOne scene in the movie that I still have not been able to figure out is the debate scene between two inmates that occurs in the courtyard about a little more than 3/4 of the way through the film. Do you think this was to show that these inmates had intelligent ideas and properly working thought processes, or was it to show the exact opposite? That the inmates were so loony as to have false debates between one another. It was just another one of the many scenes that perhaps the only way to understand it better is to watch the film again.
The movie wants us to see what went on in the facility that wasn't seen from the outside. The inmates were taken advantage of and were treated cruelly. To anyone it is just a mental institution but so much more is going on which the director did a great job of showing. For the first thirty minutes of the movie I wasn't quite sure what the film was focusing on, but it all started coming together when I saw the scene with the guards joking with each other. The film shows us the cruel truth on the treatment of the inmates when the guards are holding the man down on the table force feeding him. He was just sitting there helpless and didn't show any sign of resistance. The scene that included an extreme close up of the guards shaving Jim earlier in the movie showed that the inmates had no control over anything, because of their disability or just because of the higher power the guards had over them. The transitions between the horrible scenes and the more positive scenes (for example, the singing and the birthday party) gave some hope for the inmates. These lighter scenes should by no means cut the guards any slack or stray away from the harsh truth of treatment in the facility.
ReplyDeleteTo answers Adam's question I think the scene where the inmates are arguing about politics could be seen either way. It just depends on how the viewer takes it because I was confused by that scene as well. I was torn between whether it was an intelligent argument or they were just arguing over false statements. The directors reason for putting this scene in the film could possibly be the fact that he wanted the viewers to see that the inmates had minds of their own and are perfectly capable of having an argument about politics just like anyone else. In some cases people with mental disabilities prove to be smarter than normal people which wouldn't surprise me to be the case in this questionable scene. It sounded like they knew what they were talking about and came off as pretty intelligent statements. I definitely agree that watching the scene again would clear things up and sway you in one direction.
ReplyDeleteI have to consider the time frame that the movie was made. Vietnam and war and politics were very hot topics. I think Wiseman says look these people have thoughts about what is going on outside of these walls.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I can take home from this film is that while the guards - nurses - administrtion all go home to their families have a hot meal and can forget about the inmates. The inmates can not leave they are home. They do not have a reprieve. The ones that are not in there for violent crimes are they treated the same way.
I am not arguing the fact that Wiseman had an agenda. He did and he set out to make a film that will take your breath away. He does what any good documentarian does. He made you think and ponder. I think that the jump shots - the XCU's were all planned to give it that grainy by the seat of your pants existence.
This was a truly remarkable film in more ways than one.
What gets me the most about this film is the ending. After the last scene, Wiseman tells the viewers that after this film was released the Massachusetts government reviewed and looked over this institution to make changes. He intentionally wrote right after this statement that the Bridgewater facility has made changes, making a mockery of the Massachusetts government. He wants you to think that even though he went through all this trouble to make Titicut Follies, nothing was done to change. This is a powerful message even to this day, can and do we really make a difference in this world, or are we just fighting for nothing?
ReplyDeleteI think Titicut Follies was a fantastic documentary which gave the viewer a strong emotional connection with the patients at the institution. I noticed a marked diffrence between the documentary style of Titicut Follies and the style of documentaries today. It Titicut there was no nararation or stated purpose for the film, which is very diffrent from the form of many present day documentaries. Another diffrence was a large amount of music incorperated into the movie. This was similar to the short documentary we watched erlier in the year about "peg leg" Sam Jackson, like Titicut Follies, there was a lot of music in that movie, often preformed by the subjects of the film itself. I personaly find this style to be less informative, but much more of a art than modern documentaries by people such as Michael Moore and movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth". I thought this was a great piece of art and also a very revealing film about the treatment of the mentaly ill before the 1970's.
ReplyDeleteIn an earlier post, Christie brought up a very intresting moment at the ver end of the film, when the filmmaker states that the institution has made changes, which is obviously mocking the practices of the state run institution. I also noticed this moment as the first time troughout the whole of the film when the filmmaker makes an opinionated, literal statement about the treatment of patients and procedure at the hospital. Before this moment the director let the visuals and the sounds of the institution do the talking for him, an approach which I find refreshing and somewhat more classy. And in regards to Christies question on whether we can make a diffrence in this world, I believe yes we can, and we can look to the changes in the treatment of the mentaly ill at places like in Titicut Follies as an example, with presure from media such as this film, we can change situation such as its subject.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Blake earlier when he mentioned when the inmates were performing their talent show, it was more of a mockery of their existence, rather than a celebration or something for their own benefit. I feel they were not getting the help they need when it really could of done them some good. It was a waste of time, creativity, and life being in that prison.They were all slaves in there screaming for help but didn't get it. When they were in the publics eye i feel they were not really showing what was going on in there and they needed help bad as you could tell by the people dying in the prison.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary made Titicot resemble a world war 2 death camp becasue it was a place to ship the mentaly handicapped rather than an institution for the treatment of ill people as it was ment to be. The behavior of the guards was abusive both physically and mentally. This can be seen in the calusness of the guards when they cut the patients mouth while shaving him, force fed the patient with cigarete in hand and mocked the man while he was taking a bath. In additioned the constant stripping of clothing and being forced to live in a room without bed or blankets is extremly abusive. The behavior of the guards was disgusting and oxymoronic because while Titicot was ment to rehabilitate the mentally ill, it did anything but.
ReplyDeleteWhen the man, who in my opinion seemed well enough to leave for good, begged the head psychiatrist to be let back in prison but was refused, it struck me as extremly odd. To be in a institution that mekes prison seem a favorable option certainly points to something being wrong with the institution he is at now. However, no guards noticed this because they were either tormented with dillusions of being a broadway singer or just did not care.
The filming of this reminded me of a Michael Moore type documentary. While I was only granted the facts of Titicot, I could not help but generalize the truth that all mentle health institutions at this time were terrible. While Titicot could have just been the one awefull example, it made me believe all were that bad. As a result, i feel like this documentary was extremly succesfull in making its point to the audience.
Titicut Follies wants us to believe that the lives of the mentally challenged are useless and that they are not fit to be treated like humans.
ReplyDeleteWiseman does this by using a variety of poignant shots and cuts throughout the film.
We get introduced to Jim, an inmate at the facility who the guards treat with no respect. This is illustrated by the shots of Jim being escorted, naked, to his weekly shave. The guards berate Jim on the way, constantly asking him when he was going to clean up his room. The guards show little to no remorse as they cut Jim while shaving him. Wiseman does a tight shot of a clearly uncomfortable Jim, as the blood runs down his chin. Wiseman pulls back for a medium shot of the guards and reveals prison officials who seem to not care at all.
Another example Wiseman uses is his shot of the prison officials and the inmate who wouldn't eat.
Wiseman shows the official, with a cigarette dangling from his mouth no less, preparing a feeding tube for his obstinate prisoner. Then he uses a medium close-up, to show the official putting the tube down his nose.
The most vivid shot comes next, as Wiseman cuts to medium shot of the inmate being prepared for funeral.
These are just some of the examples Wiseman uses to get his point over.
Wiseman only gives us one side of the story, so we only have his point of view when we decide how we film about the film. Throughout the film, we see the worst of the worst from the prison officials at the Bridgewater facility. Even though he makes a compelling argument, with his use of the shots of Jim and the inmate with the feeding tube, we don't get to see an opposing view.
ReplyDeleteWiseman also uses a sarcastic tone during some parts of the movie. The opening and closing shots with some of the inmates performing seems as if Wiseman is trying to say, look at how good of a job we are doing, but then Wiseman dispels that myth in the body of the film.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the film, I firmly believe that Mr. Fred Wiseman's intention was to convince his audience that the main function of the Bridgewater State Hospital was to keep it's patients confined while they awaited death. This is shown in a number of ways. The most striking and prevalent of which being the sequence where Wiseman cuts between footage of a patient being force feed through his nose, and that of the same patient's lifeless body being prepared for the morg.
ReplyDeleteThis sequence is sad, brutal and dehumanizing but it is also beautifully crafted. It opens with footage of a naked patient refusing to eat out of what appears to be apathy. The orderlies then lay him down and force a feeding tube down his nose. Wiseman then splices cut scenes of the same patient's dead body into the sequence. It is painful to watch but it is important to the film's integrity. This sequence of cuts draws a connection in the viewer's mind between life and death. It ultimately turns us against the orderlies and summons empathy for the apathetic patient who appears to be casually waiting for death.
I think that as an audience, it is our job to be skeptical of what film makers choose to show to us. For example we do not know if the orderlies at the Bridgewater State Hospital regularly mistreat patients but after watching Titicut Follies we are inclined to believe so. When in actuality, this may be a highly rare occurence at the hospital. We simply do not know. It could be that the orderlies are usually curtious to the inmates but that the director chose not to show us this in order to slant our opinion. This gives any film maker the ability to fool an audience and slant the truth so that it is in their favor.
I thought Titicut Follies was an incredibly well made documentary. A lot of documentaries that i have seen just focus on displaying the facts and getting some kind of point across, but Titicut Follies is one that brings a powerful message along with it. At first, when it opened with a few of the inmate/patients singing songs and supposedly having a good time, i thought it would be sort of playful and optimistic, but as it cut to the patients being checked in i knew it was going in a completely different direction because it almost seemed like a check-in at a concentration camp. Two scenes that i thought were really important in getting the feel and point of the film across was seeing all of them being stripped down and robbed of their dignity as they were checked in and then seeing the man being lowered into his grave close to the end. When I saw that, i just thought that so many of them probably have hope of getting help when they first get there, but in the end, the majority of them are probably there until they die, being treated like animals. At the end, when they showed the "performers" for the second time, it really put it all into perspective. I realized that these weren't just some of the patients enjoying themselves, it was just the only thing remotely good that the employees could do for the patients.
ReplyDeleteTiticut Follies wants us to see what life is like for the prisoners of Massachusetts Correctional Facility. I think it challenges us to question our negative connotations against criminal people by seeing the mistreatment they receive, which is unbelievably cruel in several instances, and the casual manner that the workers hand it out. Everyone believes that criminals need to be punished and dangerous people contained, but the prisoners in the film are treated like animals. The film forces the viewer to see the unhappy reality of conditions in the facility, and see how the workers, who are presumably decent people outside of work, are so desensitized to the cruel conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe film convinces us of the cruel environment by showing shots of several prisoners and then constantly going back to revisit their situation to know them better. The different shots in the film help us to feel for the prisoners too. For instance, in the beginning of the film the child molester finishes his questioning and is stripped down naked and the camera follows him into a cell. There is a longer shot of him looking out the window in his jail cell. Shots like that make the viewer have empathy.
The film exploits gaps to slant our opinion in its favor in shots like Jim’s tube feeding. We see the shot of the workers shoving the tube into Jim’s stomach and pouring liquid into the tube. Then it jumps to a shot of Jim’s corpse being prepared for burial. It jumps back to a worker nonchalantly smoking a cigarette while pouring liquid into Jim’s feeding tube, cigarette ash included.
I think this movie wanted to portray the cruel and butal lives unvoluntarily given to the inmates, that were slipped past the public, in the Bridgewater facility. I got a sense of torture being done there, not only physically but mainly emotionally. One scene that really made my skin crawl was when the one worker kept incessantly pestering the one inmate about cleaning his room, which was ironic because his room was barren. What a sick joke. They would mock and talk down to the patients in an awful tone and manner that seemed to make the workers feel better about themselves. Some scenes in the movie, like the extreme close ups of the main worker with a huge grin on his face or the scene where the nurse was boasting about how much she helped one patient, got a message across of the workers only doing their job for their own glory, instead of actually wanting to help. Even though this documentary was unsettling most of the time, I think it was made for a good reason and it probably helped educate the public and help fix the problems that were going on in the Bridgewater facility.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was really disturbing and I could go with never watching Jim's feeding tube scene again, I think the film was really great. It did a really good job of sending its message. I agree with the above comments about it only showing one side, so we can't truly know how accurate it actually was, but we definitley have more insight.
ReplyDeleteSarah commented "The film exploits gaps to slant our opinion in its favor in shots like Jim’s tube feeding. We see the shot of the workers shoving the tube into Jim’s stomach and pouring liquid into the tube. Then it jumps to a shot of Jim’s corpse being prepared for burial. It jumps back to a worker nonchalantly smoking a cigarette while pouring liquid into Jim’s feeding tube, cigarette ash included."
ReplyDeleteThis was the most interesting technique used in the movie I think. The jump cuts really build the already high anticipation of this uncomfortable scene with the feeding tube being roughly shoved down the nose of a bare boney body. When it jumps to the body being prepared for burial, at first I was relieved to not see the feeding tube anymore but then I realized that it wasn't a good scene either. Then it jumps to the scene with the birthday party going on. But this almost wasn't a good scene either because it shows how self centered all the workers are. The jump cuts in this movie really add a lot to the message and feeling of the documentary.
The intent of the film seems pretty obvious. Wiseman wanted to expose the imperfections of out institution's. How does Wiseman get permission to make such a film? Did the institution think Wiseman's movie would help their image somehow? Thats just a part that i haven't been able to understand. The lack of a real story and plot line bothered me. The point of the film, however, seems too be a good cause and i respect that. Is's still not something i'd want to see again.
ReplyDeleteIn one word, this film was POWERFUL. Fred Wiseman certainly mastered this, but then again, it might have just been too easy to villify the wretched guards. It's like they were asking for it. Wiseman's film techniques expressed the desperate need for change in the completely messed up institution. It had to be schocking to viewers in the 1960's. The people's definition of the word "crazy" was way too loosely applied in those days. I actually applaud this film for its raw honesty and ability to be IN YOUR FACE. Hell, something had to be done.
ReplyDeleteI interpreted some of the XCU's as symbolic. In those shots, the viewer is forced to focus in on one thing...and that thing was usually repulsive. You could really only see one small part of the picture. You couldn't look away. You just had to view it. The scene of the close up of the mouth comes to mind. It was just plain nasty. Then inmates must have felt this way also. They only understood snippets and never really got the full picture.
It seemed as though through every scene, I absolutely could not wait til it was over or until I could look at something else for God's sake. The duration of each terrible thing happening on screen was almost unbearable. But yet again, when the scene did change, the cycle inevitably started again. When will this end? I was so restless. The inmates' existence must have been so restless.
Finally, the film strongly reminded me of Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, where the protagonist yearns to prove that they are not the crazy ones. The injustice was unbearable, there was no choice, and their "Nurse Ratched" was all powerful.
The film, aside from the horrendous story, was done beautifully. Something about that black and white film and the focus was so amazing, so purely human. Two thumbs up, Wiseman!
He made me hate those self-righteous cowards who built themselves up by pushing the already weak to new lows. He made me sympathize with the mistreated inmates. Wow. That's talent. I loved it.
The scene where Jim would not eat and they were feeding him from the tube wanted us to believe they wanted him to live and that is why they were tube feeding him but in reality he was already one step from the grave. The attendants did not care whether he lived or died they wanted us to believe they cared. It was very cruel to force feed him when he was already dying. If they had fed him from the beginning of his refusal to eat, he may not have died. As someone stated earlier, this facility is more like a place for the prisoners to have their final days of punishment for the crimes they committed. In facilities such as this, a lot of this cruelty still goes on today but more people with families who tend to their well being will bring this type punishment to light.
ReplyDeleteadam-castellarin said...
ReplyDeleteThis documentary made Titicot resemble a world war 2 death camp becasue it was a place to ship the mentaly handicapped rather than an institution for the treatment of ill people as it was ment to be. The behavior of the guards was abusive both physically and mentally. This can be seen in the calusness of the guards when they cut the patients mouth while shaving him, force fed the patient with cigarete in hand and mocked the man while he was taking a bath. In additioned the constant stripping of clothing and being forced to live in a room without bed or blankets is extremly abusive. The behavior of the guards was disgusting and oxymoronic because while Titicot was ment to rehabilitate the mentally ill, it did anything but.
McKenzie Day: What Adam said is so true, and also reminded me of how it compared with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. In the book, it pointed out the irony of a mental "hospital." When you think of a hospital or rehabilitation center, you think of getting help. Of healing. Of improving. Of people who care. But in reality it was nothing like that. The conflict the book brings out is how the staff treated patients like machines, something to be "fixed" instead of healed. I could see the similarity in Titicut Follies as well. Except in the documentary, it seemed as though their idea of "help" was far, far from the normal idea of help. Cruelty, yelling, cutting, verbal abuse....hmmm. Doesn't sound too helpful to me.
Titticut Follies attempts to show us the true conditions of the patients in the Massachusetts Correctional Facility. The viewers are shown raw, graphic footage of the patients and their mental and physical states in a way that appeals to the viewers’ emotions and personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTitticut Follies starts by showing fully nude men being processed through the entrance of the correctional facility. Many of these men were noticeably ill and the film focused on one man in particular in what I believe an effort to show the severity of their mental illness. This use of pathos enforces the producer’s beliefs and his reasoning for the film without having to directly say anything to the viewer. There are many ways the producer does this including a scene where a man is getting his face shaved and the shaver haphazardly shaves, causing the patient to bleed profusely. The film is packed with many of these types of scenes that convince us of the poor treatment that the patients went through.
The film uses specific angles and carefully placed shots in an attempt to force the viewer into believing that what they are seeing was the real deal and that the patients were really treated in such a way. One shot in particular showed a man who “refused” to eat (whether or not that is true is left to the viewer’s discretion) has a tube forced down his throat and is fed. A shot of his dead body flashes before the viewer’s eyes and this implies that he was mistreated and died due to malnutrition. We don’t actually know WHAT happened to him, but it is the intentional gap in information that sways our opinion of the facility.
After reading other people's responses, I realized I forgot to include the scene where the patient was consistently asked if he was going to keep his room clean. I could tell that the man had pent up anger toward the orderlies in some form or fashion. The orderlies were completely sarcastic and disrespectful and I agree with everyone who talked about his living conditions being very horrible. You would think that humans would treat other humans with more respect than that, but not there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was very interested in the guy who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He seemed rather competent, so I felt horrible for him that he was being forced to take medications against his will, and that he was having to stay in a place with people in far worse mental condition. However, I must also question what crime he committed prior to being placed there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am wondering why people had such a problem with the ending of the film. The ending basically confirmed for us, that Wiseman accomplished something in the production and release of this film. Wiseman was an observationist documentarian, and this is an observational documentary, however there is an unspoken advocacy there for the prisoners, which had to be there in order for anyone to see the film and think, "Wow, these people are being mistreated, something should be done". I think Wiseman did a great job with such a difficult and obviously controversial topic, and that is why this film is always shown as an example of great documentary filmmaking. And of course some of the story is left untold, but would we really have as much sympathy as an audience for the prisoners if we knew what they all did to be in prison in the first place? I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteTiticut Follies was not a movie that appealled to me. But I beleive that the objective of this film was to show the viewer the inhumane treatment of the patients. The film convinces us of the mistreatment by showing the instances of the mistreatment and that alone. There are scenes in the movie that show the patients being treated fairly but almost in a demeaning way. When we come to a conclusion on this film, we make it based on only the scenes we have seen. The film maker purposely neglects to add scenes with compasion towards the patients, because these scenes would defeat the purpose of the documentry. For example, when a patient refused to eat, the staff attempted to force feed him as if he were live stock. From this scene the film jumps to the same man in a coffin. Wiseman purposely left out scenes regaurding the concern and attention paid to this man. By doing this Wiseman has conveyed the over all mistreatment of the patients.
ReplyDeleteTiticut Follies is a movie that I didn't care for. Even though I didn't care for the film, I do think that in this documentry Wiseman is trying to show the wrongful treatment of the prisoners. An example of this conclusion would be the scene were the officers are force feeding a patient that clearly doesn't want to eat that just wants to starve to death. The way Wiseman puts the scenes together, he makes the audience to feel for the prisoners, even though we don't know what they did to get there.
ReplyDeleteThe scene were the orderlies are shaving and cleaning up one of the prisoners, I think his name is Jim, Wiseman showed us how disrepectful sarcastic and demeaning they are. they talked to the man like he was not anything. Another scene displaying that would be at the beginning of the film, were the patients are forced to sign for the entertainment of the officers at the prison.
ReplyDelete