Magnan !

Jessica Magnan

History of Documentaries

Professor Perrine

16 November 2015

Techniques for Change

Documentaries have power to inform audience about their society and allow them to

make judgements on that information. Frederick Wiseman believed this is the purpose of

documentaries, which shows through his work. In Wisemans 1969 film Titicut Follies, the

examined subject signifies a look into larger social issues at play. Although Wiseman exploits the

criminally insane at Bridgewater with questionable ethics, his capture of profilmic events with

mosaic editing creates a disturbance intended to shock the audience into action.

To start his film, Wiseman frames Titicut Follies with a staged performance. This setup

allows for some reflexivity in the sense that the filmmaker acknowledges this performance is

being filmed and addresses the problems of observational cinema. (The ethics of observation

cinema is concerned with truth that may not be represented accurately due to this fly on the

wall method of capturing events.) This performance frame expresses Wisemans belief that

people do not significantly alter their behavior for the camera, that if they are made self-

conscious by its presence they will tend to fall back on behavior that is comfortable (Grant 242)

which translates to all of the inmates behavior in the film. Whether they are performing for the

crowd or performing for the camera, their behavior is not drastically altered from what it would

be, had the camera not been there according to Wisemans theology. The presence of the camera
 Magnan !2

prompts the patients of Bridgewater to perform comfortably and act as they do on a familiar

day-to-day basis.

Despite some instances in the film, such as the institutions performance, Titicut Follies

mainly has an observational technique. These types of documentariesthis one includedtend

not to use voiceover narration, interviews, or staged/directed action; what is shown has merely

been observed by the filmmaker. Titicut Follies is a film of people who appear oblivious to the

presence of the cameraWhat happens at Bridgewater State, we are led to believe, has nothing

to do with the making of the film (Spence and Navarro 68) and Wiseman aimed to capture all

events in their truest form as they unfolded, with no prompting or directing from himself. To best

capture some of the most significant profilmic events, Wiseman worked directed audio while on

location, not the video. He believed this method of guiding his cameraman (John Marshall)

through the sound gives him greater freedom to see what is around him than if he were looking

at prolific events through the viewfinder (Grant 240). These techniques of filming and

observational cinema allow for viewers to see the events and injustices at Bridgewater as is, and

demands for audiences to make their own judgements and conclusions about these injustices.

The lack of titles, interviews, staged events, and voiceover narration forces viewers to decide

how they feel about the images and conditions at Bridgewater, and with Wisemans skill of

capturing shock-evoking events, the film pushes for outrage at the institution.

While Wiseman uses several techniques that are traditionally considered methods of

observational cinema, he does stray from this approach, namely when it comes to his editing.

Many believe that observational cinema editing must be organized chronologically in order to

remain as faithful as possible to the profilmic events (Grant 241), which is where Wiseman
 Magnan !3

strays from direct cinema. It is impossible to tell whether the events are in chronological order or

not, except in a few circumstances, one being the staged performance (because it is at the

beginning and end), and the other of the films force feeding scene. Wiseman crosscuts between

the force feeding of a patient to the same mans body being prepped for his funeral. The cutaway

to the inmates body comes as a shock to audiences. It is contrastingly silent and gentle compared

to the commotion and roughness of the force-feeding. The actions in both settings are very

different: The doctors performing the force-feeding are harsh and reckless as they tether the

patient down and funnel food into him whereas the man prepping the inmates body is careful.

This juxtaposition suggests to audiences that the patients at Bridgewater are more cared for in

death than when they were alive. The editing of Titicut Follies aims to evoke shock and exploit

how the situation at Bridgewater needed to change. This mosaic structure asks audience to push

for social reform, and this very principle is what concerns Wiseman more than truthfulness that

concerns most documentaries of direct cinema.

Techniques of observational cinema, such as lack of narration and interviews, help

documentaries present a more truthful film to audiences that have grown to question these

guiding tactics. While Wiseman uses these methods for Titicut Follies, he also strays from

traditional observational cinema by acknowledging where the subgenre raises ethical questions

by including the institutions performance in the film, and more importantly, how he uses editing

to manipulate the events. His techniques evoke emotions in audiences and most of his work in

Titicut Follies is based upon this goal. Wisemans film aimed to affect his audience by the

injustices at Bridgewater and influence them to advocate for social change, and the techniques he

uses to bring his film together reflect this.

 Magnan !4

Works Cited

Grant, Barry Keith. Ethnography in the First Person: Frederick Wisemans Titicut Follies

Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Ed.

Barry Keith Grant & Jeannette Sloniowski. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998.

Print.

Spence, Louise, and Vinicius Navarro. Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. New

Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2011. Print