As someone who has experienced modern day psychiatric abuse, I can say the authoritarianism, perverse ideology and "diagnostic" procedures are the same today as in 1967. Because there is no medical evidence in psychiatry it really comes down to the "patient's" story versus the doctor's -- and the former has already lost because he's been labelled a patient.
A very complex issue is oversimplified and given a flawed understanding, making it hard to find a middle ground between the real problems depicted and the ones probably more invented by editing than real, making this both ethical for its courage and unethical for being manipulative at times. There might be more truth in between scenes, just as a crazy person appears to be logical at times. Props for the real stuff.
Tal vez este director sea uno de las principales influencias de Raymond Depardon. El documental de Frederick Wiseman carece de "voz", todo aquí es objetivo, pero lo que es más atractivo (cosa que no posee el director francés) es que juega con los primeros planos. La movilidad del encuadre es casi perverso, al menos para el tema que se está tratando. Esto convierte a "Titicut follies" en un filme visceral.
A voyage into madness guided by the perverted look of Frederick Wiseman (see the musical numbers of "The Titicut Follies", a vaudeville-like group constituted by the monstruous guards of the madhouse in question) is, despite its various qualities, still too ambiguous to produce a strong and lasting "meaning". The lack of a protagonist and the varitety of the information also draw the spectator back.
i was very reluctant to give this 5 stars cause i had a terrible experience with this movie. it was tough, hard, and disturbing. almost got me dizzy and everything. but it's brilliant, even though it shakes and kills your guts. you may end up hating the film, but in fact it's brilliant.
Yeah, if I saw this during the late 60s, I would have throw bricks threw windows. We all know how institutions breed corruption but what was so profound about this doc was the individual inmates that were depicted and the methods used on them. It left me with so many questions about whether or not these folks would be institutionalized by today's standards.
This documentary is precisely what any fictional movie could never achieved. A serene and yet profound sadness, produced by a fragile human beings, in their lowest and desperate moments. The institution represents society's conception of "madness", while they actively participating in the construction of that conception, forcing its inmates to confine to those meaning. I wonder if Foucault had a say on this.