Capo
Administrator 
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 12, 2009 14:32:27 GMT
This is a marvellous film.
It's an examination of a social institution, a prison hospital for the criminally insane. It's damning but never didactic; no voice-over, no pre-determined narrative shape, so that events themselves dictate structure and significance.
And the events speak for themselves; Wiseman observes "scenes" with a casually probing camera, and relies on editing for dramatic scope and political context. He's a master of juxtaposition. This kind of filmmaking appeals to me greatly.
Much of it is heartbreaking, in how it follows several individuals and loses them to a larger, more oppressive whole: the paranoiac whose sanity and self-awareness is being daily chiseled away, to name just one example, is powerful, moving and shocking.
The film concentrates on the institution and its faults, on both an administrative level and a systematic level. In limiting itself to this scope, it maintains a certain power; it is unable, without becoming more politically conscious, to place the institution into a wider social context.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 13, 2009 4:32:41 GMT
This is a marvellous film. Cool. The world always needs more. It's an examination of a social institution, a prison hospital for the criminally insane. It's damning but never didactic; no voice-over, no pre-determined narrative shape, so that events themselves dictate structure and significance. Sounds fascinating. Care to give an example possibly? And the events speak for themselves; Wiseman observes "scenes" with a casually probing camera, and relies on editing for dramatic scope and political context. He's a master of juxtaposition. This kind of filmmaking appeals to me greatly. Off-the mark question: When does the editing become the event? Certainly I almost consider applying that notion perhaps to JFK, or maybe not? Just a muse. Much of it is heartbreaking, in how it follows several individuals and loses them to a larger, more oppressive whole: the paranoiac whose sanity and self-awareness is being daily chiseled away, to name just one example, is powerful, moving and shocking. Sounds terrificly captivating. it is unable, without becoming more politically conscious, to place the institution into a wider social context. But isn't it already politically subconcious when the film does this, and you notice it? Not a criticism or attack, just...a question. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 13, 2009 14:36:54 GMT
As for an example of its editorial style, there's a scene in the film in which an inmate who refuses to eat food is forced onto his back (naked) for a tube to be pushed up his nose far enough for him to receive liquid food. The seeming willingness with which the inmate resigns himself to this is absolutely heartbreaking - no complaints, no shouting, no struggle, and all the while the officers at hand are calling him "a veteran" because he makes their job easy. The real horror comes when Wiseman starts intercutting to and from the same guy's dead corpse, being shaved and prepared for the morgue. It's such a deadpan juxtaposition that it really catches you off-guard and leaves a tragic aftertaste.
And no, the film does not place the Institution itself (neither this institution specifically nor the Institution as a concept) into a wider social context, which means it can't give a deeper political analysis as to questioning and accounting for institutional policies and practices.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 15, 2009 15:08:28 GMT
Alright, but I ask because you remember Traffaut's thought on the supposed "Anti-War" film. I just wonder if its even possible to be apolitical, even in the best intentional efforts. And the events speak for themselves; Wiseman observes "scenes" with a casually probing camera, and relies on editing for dramatic scope and political context. He's a master of juxtaposition. This kind of filmmaking appeals to me greatly. Off-the mark question: When does the editing become the event? Certainly I almost consider applying that notion perhaps to JFK, or maybe not? Just a muse. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 16, 2009 18:20:42 GMT
I just wonder if its even possible to be apolitical, even in the best intentional efforts. I never said Wiseman was apolitical or that the film was intended to be so. And I don't think anything in either of my posts suggest that. Montage, baby. Eisenstein. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 17, 2009 0:51:37 GMT
I just wonder if its even possible to be apolitical, even in the best intentional efforts. I never said Wiseman was apolitical or that the film was intended to be so. And I don't think anything in either of my posts suggest that.[/quote] "And no, the film does not place the Institution itself (neither this institution specifically nor the Institution as a concept) into a wider social context, which means it can't give a deeper political analysis as to questioning and accounting for institutional policies and practices."From the Random House Dictionary: a⋅po⋅lit⋅i⋅cal /ˌeɪpəˈlɪtɪkəl/ [ey-puh-lit-i-kuhl] Show IPA –adjective 1. not political; of no political significance: an apolitical organization. 2. not involved or interested in politics. Intentional or not, political is still political...or apolitical is still apolitical...or more like apolitical is still political. That the auteur choose not to focus on this institution...is still a choice, which to the narrative was that the institution in your interpretation is meaningless, thus no political significance...thus apolitical. Montage, baby. Eisenstein. You're right. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 17, 2009 11:35:51 GMT
Intentional or not, political is still political...or apolitical is still apolitical...or more like apolitical is still political. That the auteur choose not to focus on this institution...is still a choice, which to the narrative was that the institution in your interpretation is meaningless, thus no political significance...thus apolitical. What the fuck are you saying? Shut up. I said the film does not place its institute into a wider social context, which means its camera does not leave the immediate physical vicinity; it doesn't probe higher or further as to why the institute seems to be so inadequately staffed, equipped and administered. You'd have to look at other state-specific laws and even beyond those to get such answers. You can't do that when you're limiting yourself to such a narrow scope. (If the film has any flaw, it is length - if it does not necessarily need to be wider in scope, it may have been longer - though that's simply a personal preference, and speaks again to the high quality of the film.) None of this means the film is apolitical. It just means it can't go deeper than "The Institute" in itself, as a concept. The presentation of the institution is matter-of-fact, it speaks for itself; it's horrific, both in a real sense and a dramatic sense. In concentrating so narrowly, though, the film contains and maintains an emotional intensity throughout, and brings to light the horrors occurring without any conclusive preaching (hence why I said it is "damning but never didactic"). Wiseman seems content with this; and, considering the controversy the film stirred with authorities, and the disclaimer at the end telling us Wiseman has been told to tell us that conditions have been improved since the film was shot, it is quite possibly enough for the film to present the institution in question without being more aggressive up the chain. |
|
|
|
Post by jarmic6 on Aug 24, 2009 9:15:05 GMT
I saw this in a festival some years ago. It was really hard to watch for me, a really devastating experience. In the same time, I though it was quite a brave project.
|
|
