Titicut Follies is a film told in the style of “direct cinema”. There’s no narration and we only see Frederick Wiseman’s voice within the editing, as in the juxtaposition of an inmate being force-fed with shots of his death. Scenes of an articulate man labeled as a “paranoid schizophrenic” arguing with the doctors about the conditions and his release hammers in the point: most patients would be treated better in jail than this mental institution. This raises an intriguing dilemma. Given that many of the men portrayed in Titicut Follies didn’t give consent, or may not have been in a state of mind for their consent to mean anything, is it ethical to expose the state of affairs in Bridgewater State Hospital considering the public humiliation its subjects will suffer? This contradiction of the rights of the individual vs society is the subject of Calvin Pryluck’s article on the ethics of documentary filmmaking.
As the article mentions, there’s a coercive nature of obtaining consent that Wiseman and other documentarians use. Having already gained access from the institution itself, and his subjects being in a demeaned state, they’re likely to be intimidated and rarely object to a carefully worded request for consent. This sounds unethical, but it’s a catch-22. The documentary filmmaker’s objective is, at least in some cases, to shed light on the dark spots of the world society wouldn’t see otherwise. To do this in Titicut Follies, consent of the subjects is necessary. But, because the subjects are mentally ill and in no position to give meaningful consent, there’s no way to tell a story that could potentially help the men at Bridgewater without invading their rights. The question becomes this: is it worse to not shed light on the inhumane treatment of inmates at Bridgewater State Hospital and institutions like it, potentially allowing it to go on longer, or to further invade the inmates’ rights in a very public way? Wiseman claims that because his films are about public institutions, first amendment rights trump the privacy rights of the individuals portrayed.
Personally, I think the moral and ethical route is the one which does the most good for society. Bridgewater State Hospital wasn’t an isolated case, there were many more institutions with similar or worse conditions. To not make Titicut Follies would spare the subjects from being humiliated by the general public, but considering they were in a place where they could be forced to strip nude while being filmed, they didn’t have much privacy to begin with. For a chance at better conditions, and perhaps even saved lives for not just these men but thousands of others, the tradeoff of privacy is a small price to pay. Despite some morally dubious practices, the end result of Titicut Follies is an honest film that improves society. It’s hard to call that unethical.
Titicut Follies definitely brings up a number of questions in regards to ethics within film making. The numerous subjects featured in the film do not realize that they are subjects at all. In his article, Pryluck states that all subjects have no choice when placed in that situation. When put in a room surrounded by equipment, it makes subjects less likely to make objections. This can lead to the over exploitation of characters. Subjects can be put in harmful situations and even deadly ones. The brutal scene of the patient being force fed, juxtaposed with images of his death paint a grim picture of what kinds of things went on within that facility. But is social justice a just cause for these graphic images to be caught on camera and then shared with the world?
In its direct cinema form, Titicut Follies offers only exact observations of actual events that took place within the mental institution. Wiseman did not step in and stop any of the horrendous actions or stop recording. As mentioned within the reading from The Picture of Mental health, Wiseman chose this stance because it, in turn, put all of the blame and shame on the mental hospital. He truly felt that the lives of poorly treated mental health patients could lead to better conditions. Yes, he went on to leave the hospital and its patients in dire need, but he felt his images would allow for them to be saved eventually. When it comes to issues like these, film makers must smartly balance ethics with truths. I think there can be line drawn between what is too much and what is ethically acceptable. But it is films like Titicut Follies that blur these lines and spark interesting debates over what should be tolerated in media.
Titicut Follies documents the brutal lives of the mistreated and abused inmates of Bridgewater Correctional Institution in Massachusetts in the 1960s. The method of documenting the subjects in the film is very observational and doesn’t interfere with any of their action(s). This brings up many ethical questions about the privacy of the subjects and their “decisional capacity.” Were the patients mentally capable of consenting the use of their image in the film and if not, was the revealing of the cruel and heartless treatment warranted by the helpless patients? The release of the film was restricted due to these questions until 1991, twenty-four years after its completion.
In my opinion, the film’s release shouldn’t have been delayed because of these questionable reasons. The hospital knew the film’s release would seriously hurt their image and would cause uproar from the general public. Filmmaking ethics aside, the hospital’s personnel should have looked past their personal interests and realized the necessary reform for the well being of the 600+ people who need real help. The events filmed were real, and were filmed to bring about change whether the abusive employees liked it or not.
Titicut Follies was made by Frederick Wiseman who is considered to be the most successful independent filmmaker in the United States. Filmed at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Bridgewater MA, it showcases the facilities including the criminally insane.
I feel like Wiseman made a great documentary portraying the poor conditions at Bridgewater and the treatment of the inmates. I feel like ethically speaking, Wiseman was well in the arena of ethical film work, he was not doing it to hurt the inmates, he was just directly putting out the viewers what was going on. What we perceive from this direct cinema is clearly the staff and the facilities were not well maintained. I agree with the article when it says "exposes the substantial but not uncommon gap between the ideal of informed consent and the practice of direct cinema. Similar to health care professionals, a wide consensus exists among documentary filmmakers that consent is not valid unless it is given under conditions free of coercion and deception and with knowledge of the procedures and anticipated effects by come one competent."
Titicut Follies is a documentary by Frederick Wiseman shot in the style of "direct cinema." Direct cinema is a very hands-off style of filmmaking, if Titicut Follies is any indication, as there was no narrator or direct voice to the audience providing context for the images shown on screen. Instead, the camera serves as a sort of "fly on the wall" perspective, allowing the audience to see inside the Bridgewater Correctional Institution and come to their own conclusions, although Wiseman hoped that audiences would have a reaction to the poor living conditions of the patients of the mental facility. This is not to say that Wiseman's narrative voice does not show up at all. Rather, his voice is displayed through the shots that he choose to include, and as the article points out, how those shots were taken, using the force-feeding scene as an example.
One issue that critics had with the film brings up the ethical question of consent for filmmaking, bearing in mind that some of the mentally ill patients couldn't have had the mental capacity to give consent to Wiseman. I believe that Wiseman covered his bases by receiving consent from the owner of the mental facility, but only if the documentarian informs the owner of the potential backlashes from what could happen if the film were to be released. The owner should have the foresight to realize that some of the images of his institution were not going to reflect well on the institution, and by extension him. Instead, the release of the film was held back in Massachusetts until 1991, because the patients weren't able to give consent.
The way that ethics were used in the filming of Titicut Follies was kind of disturbing. Meaning, there is a huge lack of ethics used towards the subjects in the film. Most of the subjects have no idea that they are being filmed for a documentary, or are in no way at all sane enough to even understand the concept. Obviously, there had to be legal documents signed by the subjects to show their faces in the film. I do not believe that all of the subjects were in their right mind to sign those contracts. It makes me wonder what those people, their families, and friends thought after the documentary was released. I would kind of like to do some follow up research on that. The film also shows the staff at the mental hospital giving poor treatment to the patients. I thought that was awful, and the hospital knew the film was being made and knew it could hurt their image. I think that was really shocking and caused a lot of the general public to be angry when the film was released. Overall, I thought the film was very eery, and kind of scary. It seems like "Titicut Follies" could be the plot to a horror film.
In the article, they talk about how Wiseman wanted to show the public how awful these patients were being treated in the mental hospital. He thought that it would eventually help the patients receive better treatment, not only at that hospital, but at mental hospitals all over the country. After reading that part of the article, I kind of saw where Wiseman was coming from, he just wanted to help.
Titicut Follies is a documentary taken during the 1960s, in Bridgewater Correctional Institution. The story is based on the cruel treatment of inmates within the walls of the institution. The documentary is a visual piece that has no narrator and no interviews. It makes the audience analyze the situation without interruption from the filmmaker. Pryluck’s article discusses different ethical problems filmmakers have when filming subjects, who may not actually be comfortable with the images the filmmaker is taking. In class we discussed, if the subjects being filmed in Titicut Follies even had the mental capacity to agree to be in the film. The institution signed for the patients’ consent, giving the filmmaker the right to violate the privacy of the inmates. I was not a fan of Titicut Follies, but that does not mean I hated it. The documentary uses very powerful images of the mistreatment of the inmates in Bridgewater Correctional. I understand what Wiseman is trying to show with the images he uses in his documentary, and getting the word out about the mistreatment of these people. I believe it is a story that needed to be told to reveal the horrible treatment of patients. But, I believe Wiseman’s way of getting the consent for his subjects within the documentary, using loop holes in the law to get consent. Wiseman received consent from the institution to be allowed to video the patients, and uses the institutions negligence to defend the shots he took for his documentary. However, I believe this method Wiseman used was unethical in reference to Pryluck’s article.
Titicut Follies is probably the most disturbing document I've ever seen. It showed the lives of the mental patients in Bridgewater Correctional Institution from the 1960s. There wasn't any narration to speak of during the film. It was all observational which left our minds to contemplate what was actually happening in certain scenes. I found myself feeling very emotional for the men in Bridgewater because if the guards would do these terrible things to the patients on camera then what exactly were they doing to them off camera? This mistreatment was simply barbaric and I cannot believe that this actually took place here in America.
Now whether or not this documentary is ethical is up to whoever watches it. I believe that it was ethical because making this film was necessary so that the men could get help and not continue to be mistreated at the institution. I also think that it is a little unethical because the filmmaker has now captured these images on camera for the whole world to see and the patients are not in their right mind to give consent to filming them. Titicut Follies is very different from anything we've watched before and brings questions to the table on what the right thing for society actually it. Besides the fact that this film was very graphic and overwhelming, I really enjoyed watching the observational documentary style film because I like to make up my own mind about the situation instead of being told how I am supposed to feel.
Titicut Follies was a disturbing, yet necessary documentary to watch. After a few days of reflection, I realized that Wiseman’s reasons were pure in making the film. He wanted people to see the brutality of treatment patients are receiving at Bridgewater Correctional Institution in the 1960’s. Wiseman wanted to help these patients by making this film, which could potentially help them get out. After reading this article, I realized the ethics that were at question were really answered by the film itself. Whether or not the patients in the film were competent enough to sign the waivers doesn’t matter, the idea of the ethics broken by the doctors and workers at the correctional institutional was the ethics that Wiseman wanted us to see. Wiseman knew in order for us to see the truth, he would have to gain access, no matter the measure. Overall, this film was although disturbing, was actually very necessary to watch. He let the patients tell the story, and he let the viewer get their own opinion out of it.
Titicut Follies is a film that I would probably not have watched outside this class. It was directed by Frederick Wiseman and can be said that it was shot through Direct Cinema. In the article, Leacock says that direct cinema to him is, "it's to find out some important aspect of our society by watching out society, by watching how things really happen as opposed to the social image that people hold about the way things are suppose to happen" this is exactly how I would describe the film Titicut Follies.
Wisemans goal of the film was to show everyone the truth at what is going on at Bridgewater Correctional Institution back in the 1960s and by doing that he had to go in and film the truth that was going on behind closed doors. The images you see in the film are very disturbing and the way the staff treated the patients was cruel. If I heard that cop say "Hows your room gonna be?" one more time, I was going to flip the hell out. Some of those patients were not in the right state of mind and the staff just didn't care. But in order to see what was really going on in that institution, Wiseman had to film everything.
One of the issues that was brought up during the film, was if the patients gave their consent to be filmed in the documentary, because during the film they can be seen as exploited. For instance the man that was being forced fed through a tube in his nose or the man that was being yelled at by the officer about his room. Just because the institution signed for them, doesn't mean the patients wanted to be filmed in the first place. If they knew that the purpose of the film was to helped them, then maybe they would have agreed as well, but we will never know about that. In the end, this film let the patients tell the story and although it was uncomfortable to watch at some points, it is a film that needed to be made in order to get the truth out there.
Titicut Follies is a documentary directed by Frederick Wiseman. The film is about a correctional institution in Massachusetts where 2,000 men are located. What makes this film so great is the silence throughout, there is no narration or sound effects and just includes the voices from the people in the film. It shows the brutality that these men suffered from the underpaid guards and the mistreatment they got from their living areas and the food they were served. With the silence throughout the entire film, I believe that is what made the film so good and what makes Wiseman so respected. The way he captured the faces and shoed the realism of what happened in the institution are what make this a true documentary.
In the article, it talks about the cruelty that went on in the institution and how Wiseman captured it. Although many did no like the article and it got many mixed reviews, I personally liked it due to the realism of the film. What Wiseman did was truly capture real life, rather than having a narrator explain anything we got to see and judge what was happening for ourselves. It allowed the viewer to jump into the screen and be apart of what was happening, which is hard to do. The way the film was shot gave a realistic view of what that world is like and even a tiny glimpse of what might be happening in the heads of the men. Overall, I enjoyed the film and believe Wiseman is truly one of the best in documentary.
Titicut Follies is a film told in the style of “direct cinema”. There’s no narration and we only see Frederick Wiseman’s voice within the editing, as in the juxtaposition of an inmate being force-fed with shots of his death. Scenes of an articulate man labeled as a “paranoid schizophrenic” arguing with the doctors about the conditions and his release hammers in the point: most patients would be treated better in jail than this mental institution. This raises an intriguing dilemma. Given that many of the men portrayed in Titicut Follies didn’t give consent, or may not have been in a state of mind for their consent to mean anything, is it ethical to expose the state of affairs in Bridgewater State Hospital considering the public humiliation its subjects will suffer? This contradiction of the rights of the individual vs society is the subject of Calvin Pryluck’s article on the ethics of documentary filmmaking.
ReplyDeleteAs the article mentions, there’s a coercive nature of obtaining consent that Wiseman and other documentarians use. Having already gained access from the institution itself, and his subjects being in a demeaned state, they’re likely to be intimidated and rarely object to a carefully worded request for consent. This sounds unethical, but it’s a catch-22. The documentary filmmaker’s objective is, at least in some cases, to shed light on the dark spots of the world society wouldn’t see otherwise. To do this in Titicut Follies, consent of the subjects is necessary. But, because the subjects are mentally ill and in no position to give meaningful consent, there’s no way to tell a story that could potentially help the men at Bridgewater without invading their rights. The question becomes this: is it worse to not shed light on the inhumane treatment of inmates at Bridgewater State Hospital and institutions like it, potentially allowing it to go on longer, or to further invade the inmates’ rights in a very public way? Wiseman claims that because his films are about public institutions, first amendment rights trump the privacy rights of the individuals portrayed.
Personally, I think the moral and ethical route is the one which does the most good for society. Bridgewater State Hospital wasn’t an isolated case, there were many more institutions with similar or worse conditions. To not make Titicut Follies would spare the subjects from being humiliated by the general public, but considering they were in a place where they could be forced to strip nude while being filmed, they didn’t have much privacy to begin with. For a chance at better conditions, and perhaps even saved lives for not just these men but thousands of others, the tradeoff of privacy is a small price to pay. Despite some morally dubious practices, the end result of Titicut Follies is an honest film that improves society. It’s hard to call that unethical.
Titicut Follies definitely brings up a number of questions in regards to ethics within film making. The numerous subjects featured in the film do not realize that they are subjects at all. In his article, Pryluck states that all subjects have no choice when placed in that situation. When put in a room surrounded by equipment, it makes subjects less likely to make objections. This can lead to the over exploitation of characters. Subjects can be put in harmful situations and even deadly ones. The brutal scene of the patient being force fed, juxtaposed with images of his death paint a grim picture of what kinds of things went on within that facility. But is social justice a just cause for these graphic images to be caught on camera and then shared with the world?
ReplyDeleteIn its direct cinema form, Titicut Follies offers only exact observations of actual events that took place within the mental institution. Wiseman did not step in and stop any of the horrendous actions or stop recording. As mentioned within the reading from The Picture of Mental health, Wiseman chose this stance because it, in turn, put all of the blame and shame on the mental hospital. He truly felt that the lives of poorly treated mental health patients could lead to better conditions. Yes, he went on to leave the hospital and its patients in dire need, but he felt his images would allow for them to be saved eventually. When it comes to issues like these, film makers must smartly balance ethics with truths. I think there can be line drawn between what is too much and what is ethically acceptable. But it is films like Titicut Follies that blur these lines and spark interesting debates over what should be tolerated in media.
Titicut Follies documents the brutal lives of the mistreated and abused inmates of Bridgewater Correctional Institution in Massachusetts in the 1960s. The method of documenting the subjects in the film is very observational and doesn’t interfere with any of their action(s). This brings up many ethical questions about the privacy of the subjects and their “decisional capacity.” Were the patients mentally capable of consenting the use of their image in the film and if not, was the revealing of the cruel and heartless treatment warranted by the helpless patients? The release of the film was restricted due to these questions until 1991, twenty-four years after its completion.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the film’s release shouldn’t have been delayed because of these questionable reasons. The hospital knew the film’s release would seriously hurt their image and would cause uproar from the general public. Filmmaking ethics aside, the hospital’s personnel should have looked past their personal interests and realized the necessary reform for the well being of the 600+ people who need real help. The events filmed were real, and were filmed to bring about change whether the abusive employees liked it or not.
Titicut Follies was made by Frederick Wiseman who is considered to be the most successful independent filmmaker in the United States. Filmed at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Bridgewater MA, it showcases the facilities including the criminally insane.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Wiseman made a great documentary portraying the poor conditions at Bridgewater and the treatment of the inmates. I feel like ethically speaking, Wiseman was well in the arena of ethical film work, he was not doing it to hurt the inmates, he was just directly putting out the viewers what was going on. What we perceive from this direct cinema is clearly the staff and the facilities were not well maintained. I agree with the article when it says "exposes the substantial but not uncommon gap between the ideal of informed consent and the practice of direct cinema. Similar to health care professionals, a wide consensus exists among documentary filmmakers that consent is not valid unless it is given under conditions free of coercion and deception and with knowledge of the procedures and anticipated effects by come one competent."
Titicut Follies is a documentary by Frederick Wiseman shot in the style of "direct cinema." Direct cinema is a very hands-off style of filmmaking, if Titicut Follies is any indication, as there was no narrator or direct voice to the audience providing context for the images shown on screen. Instead, the camera serves as a sort of "fly on the wall" perspective, allowing the audience to see inside the Bridgewater Correctional Institution and come to their own conclusions, although Wiseman hoped that audiences would have a reaction to the poor living conditions of the patients of the mental facility. This is not to say that Wiseman's narrative voice does not show up at all. Rather, his voice is displayed through the shots that he choose to include, and as the article points out, how those shots were taken, using the force-feeding scene as an example.
ReplyDeleteOne issue that critics had with the film brings up the ethical question of consent for filmmaking, bearing in mind that some of the mentally ill patients couldn't have had the mental capacity to give consent to Wiseman. I believe that Wiseman covered his bases by receiving consent from the owner of the mental facility, but only if the documentarian informs the owner of the potential backlashes from what could happen if the film were to be released. The owner should have the foresight to realize that some of the images of his institution were not going to reflect well on the institution, and by extension him. Instead, the release of the film was held back in Massachusetts until 1991, because the patients weren't able to give consent.
The way that ethics were used in the filming of Titicut Follies was kind of disturbing. Meaning, there is a huge lack of ethics used towards the subjects in the film. Most of the subjects have no idea that they are being filmed for a documentary, or are in no way at all sane enough to even understand the concept. Obviously, there had to be legal documents signed by the subjects to show their faces in the film. I do not believe that all of the subjects were in their right mind to sign those contracts. It makes me wonder what those people, their families, and friends thought after the documentary was released. I would kind of like to do some follow up research on that. The film also shows the staff at the mental hospital giving poor treatment to the patients. I thought that was awful, and the hospital knew the film was being made and knew it could hurt their image. I think that was really shocking and caused a lot of the general public to be angry when the film was released. Overall, I thought the film was very eery, and kind of scary. It seems like "Titicut Follies" could be the plot to a horror film.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, they talk about how Wiseman wanted to show the public how awful these patients were being treated in the mental hospital. He thought that it would eventually help the patients receive better treatment, not only at that hospital, but at mental hospitals all over the country. After reading that part of the article, I kind of saw where Wiseman was coming from, he just wanted to help.
Titicut Follies is a documentary taken during the 1960s, in Bridgewater Correctional Institution. The story is based on the cruel treatment of inmates within the walls of the institution. The documentary is a visual piece that has no narrator and no interviews. It makes the audience analyze the situation without interruption from the filmmaker. Pryluck’s article discusses different ethical problems filmmakers have when filming subjects, who may not actually be comfortable with the images the filmmaker is taking. In class we discussed, if the subjects being filmed in Titicut Follies even had the mental capacity to agree to be in the film. The institution signed for the patients’ consent, giving the filmmaker the right to violate the privacy of the inmates.
ReplyDeleteI was not a fan of Titicut Follies, but that does not mean I hated it. The documentary uses very powerful images of the mistreatment of the inmates in Bridgewater Correctional. I understand what Wiseman is trying to show with the images he uses in his documentary, and getting the word out about the mistreatment of these people. I believe it is a story that needed to be told to reveal the horrible treatment of patients. But, I believe Wiseman’s way of getting the consent for his subjects within the documentary, using loop holes in the law to get consent. Wiseman received consent from the institution to be allowed to video the patients, and uses the institutions negligence to defend the shots he took for his documentary. However, I believe this method Wiseman used was unethical in reference to Pryluck’s article.
Titicut Follies is probably the most disturbing document I've ever seen. It showed the lives of the mental patients in Bridgewater Correctional Institution from the 1960s. There wasn't any narration to speak of during the film. It was all observational which left our minds to contemplate what was actually happening in certain scenes. I found myself feeling very emotional for the men in Bridgewater because if the guards would do these terrible things to the patients on camera then what exactly were they doing to them off camera? This mistreatment was simply barbaric and I cannot believe that this actually took place here in America.
ReplyDeleteNow whether or not this documentary is ethical is up to whoever watches it. I believe that it was ethical because making this film was necessary so that the men could get help and not continue to be mistreated at the institution. I also think that it is a little unethical because the filmmaker has now captured these images on camera for the whole world to see and the patients are not in their right mind to give consent to filming them. Titicut Follies is very different from anything we've watched before and brings questions to the table on what the right thing for society actually it. Besides the fact that this film was very graphic and overwhelming, I really enjoyed watching the observational documentary style film because I like to make up my own mind about the situation instead of being told how I am supposed to feel.
Titicut Follies was a disturbing, yet necessary documentary to watch. After a few days of reflection, I realized that Wiseman’s reasons were pure in making the film. He wanted people to see the brutality of treatment patients are receiving at Bridgewater Correctional Institution in the 1960’s. Wiseman wanted to help these patients by making this film, which could potentially help them get out. After reading this article, I realized the ethics that were at question were really answered by the film itself. Whether or not the patients in the film were competent enough to sign the waivers doesn’t matter, the idea of the ethics broken by the doctors and workers at the correctional institutional was the ethics that Wiseman wanted us to see.
ReplyDeleteWiseman knew in order for us to see the truth, he would have to gain access, no matter the measure. Overall, this film was although disturbing, was actually very necessary to watch. He let the patients tell the story, and he let the viewer get their own opinion out of it.
Titicut Follies is a film that I would probably not have watched outside this class. It was directed by Frederick Wiseman and can be said that it was shot through Direct Cinema. In the article, Leacock says that direct cinema to him is, "it's to find out some important aspect of our society by watching out society, by watching how things really happen as opposed to the social image that people hold about the way things are suppose to happen" this is exactly how I would describe the film Titicut Follies.
ReplyDeleteWisemans goal of the film was to show everyone the truth at what is going on at Bridgewater Correctional Institution back in the 1960s and by doing that he had to go in and film the truth that was going on behind closed doors. The images you see in the film are very disturbing and the way the staff treated the patients was cruel. If I heard that cop say "Hows your room gonna be?" one more time, I was going to flip the hell out. Some of those patients were not in the right state of mind and the staff just didn't care. But in order to see what was really going on in that institution, Wiseman had to film everything.
One of the issues that was brought up during the film, was if the patients gave their consent to be filmed in the documentary, because during the film they can be seen as exploited. For instance the man that was being forced fed through a tube in his nose or the man that was being yelled at by the officer about his room. Just because the institution signed for them, doesn't mean the patients wanted to be filmed in the first place. If they knew that the purpose of the film was to helped them, then maybe they would have agreed as well, but we will never know about that. In the end, this film let the patients tell the story and although it was uncomfortable to watch at some points, it is a film that needed to be made in order to get the truth out there.
Titicut Follies is a documentary directed by Frederick Wiseman. The film is about a correctional institution in Massachusetts where 2,000 men are located. What makes this film so great is the silence throughout, there is no narration or sound effects and just includes the voices from the people in the film. It shows the brutality that these men suffered from the underpaid guards and the mistreatment they got from their living areas and the food they were served. With the silence throughout the entire film, I believe that is what made the film so good and what makes Wiseman so respected. The way he captured the faces and shoed the realism of what happened in the institution are what make this a true documentary.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, it talks about the cruelty that went on in the institution and how Wiseman captured it. Although many did no like the article and it got many mixed reviews, I personally liked it due to the realism of the film. What Wiseman did was truly capture real life, rather than having a narrator explain anything we got to see and judge what was happening for ourselves. It allowed the viewer to jump into the screen and be apart of what was happening, which is hard to do. The way the film was shot gave a realistic view of what that world is like and even a tiny glimpse of what might be happening in the heads of the men. Overall, I enjoyed the film and believe Wiseman is truly one of the best in documentary.