Thursday, February 25, 2010
TITICUT FOLLIES
What sorts of 'readings' can you give to Titicut Follies? Although there's not much story (it's about this place and these people but not in a linear, cause-effect way), there is style. What do you make of this style? Can you imagine choosing such a style for a documentary you are making? What are the shortcomings/advantages?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The most fascinating characteristic about Titicut Follies is its “realness.” This is not the typical One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest portrayal. The Direct Cinema style it is shot in enhances the reality by representing its subjects within the confinement of their environment. The black and white image defines its bleak surroundings and the jarring camerawork shows dedication to soak up as much of this environment as possible.
ReplyDeleteIn the scene where the patient paces and stomps in his room, the camera follows him and lingers on the moment for several minutes. The camera stays a distance from the subject, keeping the Direct Cinema “eye on the wall” approach, but once the patient looks at the camera, there’s nothing but silence and it elicits a feeling of alienation. Even though the camera is at a long distance from its subject, zooming in real close brings the viewer right into the psyche of the patient. In this particular instance, the subject’s eyes meet the camera and it is shocking, because at first it makes the subject aware of the camera, which in a sense breaks the style, however it does strengthen the notion of the subject actually making that contact if the viewer were there in person. The reality is supported by its actuality.
In Titicut Follies we get a glimpse of asylum life during the 1960s. That life, if you want to call it that, appeared very tragic. Yet just when I thought the staff bordered on cruel, we partake in an oddly jovial party where the purpose of the documentary (I assumed exploitative) comes into question. Because of this scene I do believe they maintained neutrality of sorts, choosing not to label the ayslum system either efficient or flawed. However the lack of a clearly developed story left me craving more. By being so objective and verite, if that applies, I think this piece loses its relevance over time in some way. If it were current I would find it relevant and therefore more significant. Because it's old, and I know we've made progressive changes in the mental health field, it seems to have less of an impact. But that's assuming it was meant to make change.
ReplyDeleteTitticut Follies is the first film we've seen that I have felt might have been exploitation. I do think they showed the asylum in a pretty unbiased way, but I felt like they never presented the patients (more like prisoners) in any light but negative. I tried to recall one time that they showed any patient doing or saying something positive and I couldn't. The closest thing to positive that I found is the conversation in the courtyard between the Dr. and the schizophrenic man. Even here, he is portrayed in a negative way, when, I thought, the arguments he had seemed pretty logical and justifiable.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the film was only meant to show the negative aspects because it wanted to expose what a despicable place this was, however, I felt that more of the negative emphasis was placed on the patients than the institution itself.
I was also shocked by the 'realness' of Titticut Follies, which I feel is attributed to its editing composition. The film didn't have a narrative, but with the use of editing it was able to portray the asylum realistically. By using long takes, and even staying with a patient longer then necessary the film was able to emote, at least for me, the sense of what it would feel like to live in an asylum. Through these long takes we are made aware that these people go about every single day like this, and it is not some ploy for the cameras. These long takes emphasize how bleak life in a mental institution can be, by showing a ten minute segment of a patient getting a shave and all the tribulations that it entails.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is no story to speak of, there were a few moments where the structuring of the editing focused my mind on specific elements. The first being the juxtaposition of the inmates with the priest who comes by to bless them. In the same way that the camera lingers in the patient's rooms and watches their seemingly insane behavior, the priests ritualistic blessing of the inmates individual body parts is represented similarly. For me, it brought the scope of the documentary in to focus. The inmate being blessed has the same reaction to the priest as he would to the rambling man in the courtyard.
ReplyDeleteThe second instance of insight came from the man making arguments to be set free. At first he appears to be making a fair argument that is being heard by the doctors. It is only after he has left that the doctors begin to disassemble his argument. Then, in a matter of a few jump cuts to inform the audience that time has passed, the doctors have decided to disregard everything the man had said and to increase his tranquilizers so that he won't be as argumentative. The futility of escape becomes apparent to the viewer through editing in a way that the people being filmed can not see.
Two mini-narratives that the film expressed through structure.
I felt that Titicut Follies was closer to the idea of Direct Cinema than Grey Gardens, in that the filmmaker appeared to have no empathic relationship with the subjects. There were a few parts that the film felt almost exploitative as Elna pointed out, due to this lack of empathy. The scene that sticks out the most in my mind was the scene in which the patient, stripped naked, is taken back to his room and starts stomping on the floor and banging the window. As he looks directly at the camera, it becomes clear that he is perhaps exaggerating for the camera, as though to get it out of the room. The filmmaker seems to be aware of this and chooses to continue recording his antics, almost to get a rise out of him to get an additional effect of the "craziness" of the asylum. There was another scene where a man is told to strip down, but he keeps looking at the camera as though shy and tries to cover his privates with his shirt. The camera becomes as confining as the prison itself, stripping the patients of what dignity they may have left. I feel that this style of direct cinema can never accurately portray exact conditions as long as the subjects are aware of the camera and reacting in some way to it.
ReplyDeleteThere was one scene that really showed how they used editing to structure a narrative. It is the scene in which the man is having a feeding tube shoved down his nose. It is cross-cut with another scene of the same man dead and being prepared for his funeral. It felt to me that the filmmaker wanted to show how the vile conditions of the asylum contributed to this patient's death.
I felt conflicted with Titticus Follies, as it didn't have a real "story" so to speak, but felt very exposed and almost intrusive in the lives of these asylum inhabitants in the 60's. The film was definitely emotionally appealing, as it did not hold back in what footage could be deemed "appropriate" for many viewers.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, that made the documentary that much more realistic and authentic, in its lack of a linear story and its many raw moments like the one involving the feeding tube. However, on the other hand, it did feel at times that it may have been too revealing of these poor people and their tragic situations in life. It felt even exploitive in the way it showed the treatment of these patients and their inability to escape their own nightmares, so to speak.
In conclusion, the film was very good and very moving, but also morally questioning.
Yonas Michael Wondwassen