“Titicut Follies” is a 1967 observational documentary movie with which the filmmaking career of Frederick Wiseman had begun. It is rather controversial and ambiguous related both to its topic and how it is represented. Firstly, this work illustrates the main slogan of observational cinema, which was “to show” rather than “tell”. Leaving aside the controversial questions related to objectivity and director’s positionality, the movie is both strong and horrifying.
It should be noted, that throughout his filmmaking career Wiseman focused mostly on the institutions and tried to show the objective reality going on there. Definitely, the word “objective” might sound itself a little bit problematic, since even if not by telling, it is still the director who shows and who decides what to show. In this case, Wiseman’s choice was the Bridgewater State Hospital for the criminally insane, where he illustrates the harsh conditions of patients and how the institution creates and maintains the “madness”. Throughout the film the viewer can see naked and half-naked men being mocked, bullied and even force-fed by the workers of the institution. In one of the sequences, Wiseman shows how the patient is being questioned, which makes the viewer wonder whether it is questioning or rather repressing him. The doctor asks questions without letting the patient to finish his answers, moreover, by hinting him answers. Later, we can see how the workers of the hospital provoke one of the patients to the point where it gets to bullying. One of the strongest sequences in the movie was the part where the camera shows a patient talking to the doctor asking to let him go by bringing several rather “sober” arguments and asking questions about his illness. Here, the close-ups were used at their strongest, since at some point, where the conversation gets the most intense, the camera just shows the mouth of the person, thus emphasizing the tension even more. Here, the close images of the details create what Grimshaw and Ravetz call “claustrophobia” specific to the images of Wiseman (Grimshaw A.; Ravetz A; 2009, 11). The camera works good enough to capture both this patient struggling to understand why he is still there and the doctor who smiles and laughs at him.
However, no matter how terrible those scenes were, the most terrifying sequence for me was the one where the doctor force-feeds one of the patients by passing food through the tube put in the nose of the patient. This scene is sometimes interrupted with another cuts of this patient being already dead. Simply put, the sequence overall includes the parts where the patient is being force-fed and the parts where he is already dead and what is being done to his body. This sequence is immediately and roughly followed by another one showing a birthday celebration. In my opinion, the editing in the overall movie was the strongest in this part. It even reminded me about Kuleshov effect by showing how important the order of sequences and the overall editing process are. Illustrating the birthday celebration most possibly would not be that horrifying if not followed immediately by the sequence about the dead patient.
Generally, the movie itself shows the struggle of Wiseman against this institution where he tries to illustrate the inhuman attitude towards the patients within this hospital. The movie, obviously, was firstly officially forbidden by the explanation related to ethical issues and patients’ portrayals. Wiseman from his side had claimed that he did get the consent from the patients to shoot them, and everyone in the movie agreed to be there. It is rather clear, that one of the main reasons to ban this movie was the image of the hospital and the possible harm and debates the movie could have aroused around it.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, the portrayal of patients is also of big importance here. It is rather paradoxical that by this movie Wiseman tries to document the reality in the institutions thus defending the patients, who, at the end, become more of a “tool” in this struggle. That is to say, he “fights” against this institution with his camera by portraying the patients in their worst conditions (humiliated, naked, bullied and so on). Even if the patients gave him consent, is it still ethical to portray them like that? Even if it is the reality and the goal of the movie is to illustrate it, is it “morally” right to show people in these conditions? First time when we watched an excerpt of the movie in the class, the first thing that came to my mind was Stanley Kubrick’s “Clockwork Orange” and the analogous book by Anthony Burgess. Although it is a fictional story, there are many parallels that can be drawn between it and “Titicut Follies”. Firstly, the attitude towards the criminal who needs “cure” is harsh from the side of the people who have the right to control them. Secondly, the right to choose is also important, since in both cases the patients seemingly chose (to get the treatment in “Clockwork Orange”, and to be part of the movie in “Titicut Follies”), yet this is rather questionable whether it was a choice or not. Finally, in both cases the patient becomes a “tool” or rather a “weapon” in the hands of people who fight against certain institutions.
Overall, the movie is rather strong and horrifying at the same time. The following camera, the close-ups and long cuts re-create the environment which Wiseman wanted to illustrate. Although the very question of patients’ portrayal is still problematic for me, the movie itself is rather important because it also shows what is the reality behind the walls of the institution which, ironically, is called “a hospital”. Reference:
Grimshaw, Anna, and Amanda Ravetz. 2009. Social Observers: Robert Drew, Albert and David Maysles, Frederick Wiseman in Observational cinema pp. 24-50. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Comments