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?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While Titicut Follies is done in a "direct cinema" manner I think it's much more artistic than Grey Gardens. Wiseman purposely frames his subjects to accompany the action occurring, heightening the absurdity (I can't really think of an appropriate word to use) within the facility. Such a shot is when the camera is viewing Mr. Shouts a Lot ("John F. Kennedy!!!") through the upended legs of another man doing a headstand. The cameraman fights to get a lot of shots instead of just observing.
ReplyDeleteEditing in Follies was also very different from Grey Gardens and I think that Wiseman managed to establish quite a few stories. By jumping back and forth between a number of different patients the audience understands that there is no main story (this is just a place and these are the people), but we start to feel a connection when a character is shown more than once. Wiseman doesn't want to simply gloss over everyone, he knows that each individual has their own story, and while the audience may not find out that entire story we recognize too that they exist. Particularly notable was the editing during the "tube down the nose" scene in which the shots were crossed with the dead man being prepared for his funeral. This really hits the audience deep because we have to keep watching this man being fed while already knowing the future. In this case, there is not just observation being made because Wiseman elicits a reaction that would not have occurred otherwise.
Overall, the style manages to bring out the sadness, beauty, and insanity of the patients, their keepers, and surroundings. Wiseman spends time showing the guards as well as the patients to be even more authentic. I can definitely see myself approaching this style for my own documentary. While it makes it harder to establish a story and meaning, that's also the benefit. It places limits on the filmmaker and allows the audience to stretch their minds and become fully involved in (or kept out of) the film.
I enjoyed Titicut Follies, I did like how the story was in fact non-linear which to me makes it easier to watch and "follow along" since I am mainly just observing. Being an observer allows me to be able to watch everything without having to put answers and questions together. The documentary was also emotional to me because it was straight foward, we are here just to see what it's like to interact with security but also the patrons of the facility. And from what I remember there wasn't any music to distract me away from what I was watching, it was all real and straight to the point.
ReplyDeleteI too enjoyed it even though it made me really uncomfortable to watch. I really like how Wiseman made characters out of each person he followed without giving them a name or much of a background, like the "schizophrinic" who kept telling the guards and warden that he was perfectly sane.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching it I kind of assumed that more people would like it better than Grey Gardens. The cinematography was really sharp and clear and at times it looked like a David Lynch film. Other than that however I didn't really see a mjor diffence between the two when it came to its approach. Both filmmakers made their presence known just in differnt ways, such as how Wiseman kept the shots of the patients staring at him filming.
Michael there was that little part of the man singing to the camera while that music video played in the background. I really enjoyed that part but it was defintely one of the many "Lynch" moments in the movie for me.
However
I think the Advantages of this type of documentary is that it looks into the lives of a group of people interacting in an environment we would normally not be privy to, but at the same time is entertaining. So in a way minus editing issues (meaning the story being edited one sided), you do seem to get the truth. From what I saw I believe we got truth, the pain, the pleasure of making a joke of the less fortunate by the guards, the prejudice, the rant of a person who isn't in their right mind and the rant of the person who is accused of being out of their mind. The Characters that stood out the most to me were the patient who was pleading his case to the doctor so eloquently, he either was truly in his right mind or a psychopath, and the guard who seemed as though his true desire was to be a Hollywood performer, I was expecting him to be revealed as a patient at any moment. Some of the staff seemed like characters from the comedy skits that take place in mental hospitals and come to find out the doctor is really a patient. The disadvantage may be when editing you have to ask yourself what to leave out or how to structure it. It was painful to watch at times and I think the cliche "the truth hurts" is appropriate for this documentary.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Toyiah on the point of Grey Gardens and Titicut Follies having a similiar approach. I think the reason it may seem as though Titicut Follies had more of a plot, in MY reality, is because the subject matter of Titicut Follies was inherently more emotional causing me to search for my truth/my story within the film. And though, as always, editing plays a vital role in what "story" a viewer finds, stylistically speaking I think both Wiseman and the Maysles sought out to be passive viewers (much like their audience(s)), standing by and documenting the lives of strangers (more or less) without interference.
ReplyDeleteAside from the disturbing subject matter of Titicut Follies, I felt as though Wiseman's stylistic approach to the film is what allowed the film to be so riveting (and I mean this in a "I-Dont-Want-To-Watch-But-Absolutely-Cannot-Look-Away" manner much like Night and Fog). Wiseman seems to be almost invisible much like a ghost, silent but still present (eye level yet not staring), and often present for events that most "outsiders" generally wouldn't/shouldn't be present for. Even during moments of awkwardness that would make many so uncomfortable they'd stop filming, Wiseman continues to use the camera as a lens that often shows things that viewers may not want to see but NEED to see to recognize the "truth" of the situation. It is these uncomfortable moments in the film that suggest Wiseman isn't necessarily the entirely passive ghost that he seems to be. Instead, Wiseman is using his lens to capture these "raw truths" for the sake of leaving an impression. Though the story in the film comes from the particular viewer's perception (no narrator/not Michael Moore telling you what you "HAVE TO KNOW"), Wiseman's careful portrayal of the "characters" in his film as subjects (much like the guards see the patients) instead of people leads the viewer (or at least in my case) to recognize that these patients are human and (aside from the obvious physical mistreatment) should be treated with the emotional respect that the "moral" world expects humans to live by. This can also be seen through the careful editing of the film where Wiseman chooses certain scenes to linger (for perhaps longer than desired) in order to allow the viewer to actually connect with a particular "subject" on a deeper level than merely watching a strangers mistreatment (JIM). Wiseman does a good job of weaving these "lingering" scenes and shorter scenes, allowing the viewer to connect at some points and disengage at other points. I don't mean disengage in the sense of "oh this persons mistreatment bothers me more than this persons mistreatment" but instead, I mean in terms of a connection the viewer makes with a specific patient and their particular "story" as opposed to other subjects that may not be "seen" enough to deeply affect the viewer. Night and Fog works in a very similar way by forcing the viewer to alternate between passiveness and complete engagement. This way of weaving the audience in and out of being a mere viewer and a participant allows the audience to be able to be emotionally involved with the films without being so overwhelmed they "miss" the film entirely (literally because they may not be able to physically watch the entire film and figuratively because they may not be able to understand what they just saw if their brains become scattered with horrible image after horrible image, as in the entire film becomes a blur). It is for this reason I believe Night and Fog and Titicut Follies are so successful in making their audiences REMEMBER the film, regardless of the audiences like or dislike of the film (there are still parts of Night and Fog that I can't stop replaying in my head).
ALSO...
ReplyDeleteI think Titicut Follies is an excellent depiction of cinema-verite style by capturing the "raw" truth of a subject and allowing the audience to find the story for themselves. To find THEIR story for themselves. On the one hand, you've got the filmmakers interpretation of their film and on the other, you've got the audiences interpretation of the film and as we saw in The True Meaning Of Pictures, these two hands often clash. Though through editing, Wiseman may be leading the audience to a certain "conclusion", the end "conclusion" that the audience comes to ultimately is their own conclusion (based on their own personal connections within the film, their pre-existing values, their past experiences, etc). However, that's what I think makes art interesting. Each person is allowed to find their own truth in art, making art (film, photography, whatever) forever changing with each new person who sees it. I think the way in which Titicut Follies is successful is its balance between the audience and the filmmaker. A viewers personal opinion of the film isn't what matters. What matters more so is if the film and it's subject matter will stick out in one's mind (negatively or positively) for a long time to come. I think Night and Fog and Titicut Follies are both poignant films that found the perfect balance between shaking me as a viewer while not overwhelming me to the point of giving up
I understood why he shot the movie like this but I did not enjoy it. I was more intrigued with the characters themselves than how the film was shot and edited. I can't say that I am a big fan of non-linear but I do feel like I can enjoy almost any type of film if it gains my interest. Titicut Follies I feel would have been better it the story put some sort of order to the characters, where you might get to see if they made any kind of progress mentally or what the difference may have been day to day with them. I feel like just observing it, though it has meaning, in this case left it up to the viewers on who you were intrigued by the most, which may have been none of them. I do fill from an artistic side that the film did a good job in articulating the natural, but if it was not for class it would have been a movie a cut off about half way through.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was really all around a better documentary than Grey Gardens. I thin even though neither of these films really have any kind of story, Titticut Follies still seems to give the viewer more information than Grey Gardens which is more of a home movie. Titticut Follies seems to have more to say, it invites the viewer to try and understand what is going on where as something like Gery Gardens just asks that you watch.
ReplyDeleteI thought the amount of close-ups was interesting in Titticut Follies. It's easy to talk about facilities like these and generalize the "crazies." But in the film, it puts you right in the yard with them, right against their faces, hearing their voices, watching their actions. And not simply showing us insanity... but insanity in humanity. I watched this film and I saw people who would do or say things that would make me walk faster if I passed this person on the sidewalk, and then in the next moment, I see just their expressions, and I feel their loss and confusion, relate it to my own, and to a small degree understand this person through the common attributes of humanity.The general lack of narration and non-diegetic sound allows me to assert myself into the scenery of the film, and see myself amongst it. I watch the man who refuses to eat, as they push a tube down his nose, simultaneously cross-cutting to his body being preserved for burial and I think... there but for the grace of god go I.
ReplyDelete~Nick Burbach(forgot to login and it won't let me copy/paste)