Dlančnik (PDA)

Poglejte polno različico : Frederick Wiseman

07.07.2006, 13:14
Modri moz, clovek, ki je proglasen za enega izmed najboljsi snemalcev dokumentarnih filmov in ki se posluzuje samo enega efekta:montaze. Zal se njegovi filmi zelo tezko dobljivi, saj ima Fredi vse pravice za predvajanje, katero pa v povprecju zaracunava 250 dolarjev (razlicnim institucijam sicer). Torej, ce ste zgleden drzavljan, vam preostane le vljudna prosnja mojstru, ce bi vam utalal kaksen VHS.

Ker sem len, kradem clanek z wikipedije :blush:

Wiseman works only four to six weeks in the institutions he portrays, with almost no preparation in advance. He spends the bulk of the production period editing the material, trying to find a rhythm to make a “movie”. Unlike some documentarians, he does not invite his subjects to participate in the process of editing.

Present in every Wiseman film is a dramatic structure. Not necessarily a narrative arc per se – his films rarely have what could be considered a distinct climax and conclusion; any suspense there may be is at a per-scene, human experience level and not constructed from carefully placed plot points; there are no consistent human characters with whom the viewer is expected to identify. Nevertheless, Wiseman feels that drama is a crucial element for his films to "work as movies" (Poppy). The "rhythm and structure" (Wiseman) of Wiseman's films pull the viewer into the position and perspective of the subject (human or otherwise). The viewer feels the dramatic tension of the situations portrayed in the films, as various environmental forces create complicated situations and conflicting values for the subject.

Wiseman openly admits to manipulating his source material to create dramatic structure, and indeed insists that it is necessary to "make a movie."

I'm trying to make a movie. A movie has to have dramatic sequence and structure. I don't have a very precise definition about what constitutes drama but I'm gambling that I'm going to get dramatic episodes. Otherwise, it becomes [[[Empire (1964 film)|Empire]]]. ... I am looking for drama, though I'm not necessarily looking for people beating each other up, shooting each other. There's a lot of drama in ordinary experiences. In Public Housing, there was drama in that old man being evicted from his apartment by the police. There was a lot of drama in that old woman at her kitchen table peeling a cabbage. Peary

A very distinctive aspect of Wiseman's style is the complete lack of expository (narration), interactive (interviews), or reflexive (revealing to the viewer some part of the filmmaking process) elements. Regarding the lack of reflexive elements, Wiseman has stated that he does not "feel any need to document [his] experience" and feels that such elements in films are vain. (Lucia)

In the process of producing a film, Wiseman will often acquire more than 100 hours of raw footage. Cutting this down to a feature length film that is engaging and interesting, without the use of any voiceover, title cards, or motion graphics, while still being "fair", is the reason that Wiseman is seen as a true master of documentary film.

This great glop of material which represents the externally recorded memory of my experience of making the film is of necessity incomplete. The memories not preserved on film float somewhat in my mind as fragments available for recall, unavailable for inclusion but of great importance in the mining and shifting process known as editing. This editorial process ... is sometimes deductive, sometimes associational, sometimes non-logical and sometimes a failure... The crucial element for me is to try and think through my own relationship to the material by whatever combination of means is compatible. This involves a need to conduct a four-way conversation between myself, the sequence being worked on, my memory, and general values and experience. Wiseman

07.07.2006, 13:19
Frederick Wiseman's

Wiseman's cinema-verite masterpiece about the horrid conditions at a Massachusetts asylum
for the criminally insane is very possibly the greatest documentary film of all time. Forget
about what youve seen in Hollywood films, this is the raw, hellish reality of living in a cement cell,
as indifferent and sadistic guards taunt and abuse the inmates. Watch in horror as a doctor forcefeeds
a patient through a nose-tube, while carelessly dropping cigarette ash into the mix.
Screaming, babbling maniacs galore... the lunatic is on the grass, indeed.

"Why do I need this help? You're ruining me!" So begins a dialogue between a bundle of nerves prisoner
and a short, Germanic man, apparently of letters, who controls the prisoner's fate. Standing in the desolation
of the institution's yard, the authority figure attempts to convince the prisoner that if he were "sent back to
prison today, [he would] be back to Bridgeport today or tomorrow." As if to emphasize the point and to
garnish it with an air of legitimacy, the authority figure, who would appear to be a psychiatrist, asserts,
"If you don't believe me, you can spit in [my] face." Pressing the matter still further, the prisoner asks,
"How do you know that I am a schizophrenic- paranoid?" to which the doctor retorts,
"Because you had psychological testing."

And so goes the absurdity captured in the theatrical revue of a mental institution called "Titicut Follies."
Examining the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Bridgewater, an institution for the criminally
insane, Frederick Wiseman chronicles the daily lives of the prisoners and staff in "cinema verite" style.
\Granted access to the institution for 29 days of filming, Wiseman captures images and interactions
that are both macabre and revolting. Whether it be guards badgering a prisoner for voiding on the floor of
his cell, a doctor telling a prisoner "to chew" his food as he is force fed through his nose with a tube,
or an interaction between prisoner and doctor as described above, Titicut Follies is a powerful and
disturbing examination of the world of a mental institution which, among other things, questions
the traditional boundaries separating the deviant from the conformist.

More subtly, Wiseman also makes problematic the common assumption that mental institutions are
founded on a bedrock of rationality and order. Of course, the medical model adopted by these institutions
in the twentieth century makes an explicit commitment to the logic of the scientific method--
the driving force of positivism --, yet Wiseman deftly and ironically presents the institution as a place of chaos
and absurdity, despite the regimentation and extraordinary control that it exudes. Careful and clever editing
results in the presentation of disembodied images, taken out of context, which make the functioning of the
institution seem incomprehensible. The lack of order conveyed in the film and the inability to distinguish
readily between the guards and the guarded leads one to question whether the institution has any
greater purpose than the systematic degradation of human beings-- both prisoners and guards.

Of course, painting the institution as a place mired in degradation and exploitation is ironic given
Wiseman's own use of the prisoners and guards as his "subjects." In using these people as the vehicles
for his polemical attack on mental institutions, Wiseman has been accused of doing to the prisoners what
he condemns others for doing. In fact, it was this point which resulted in a series of court cases, dating
from the 1967 release of the film, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared the documentary
obscene and exploitive, banning it from public viewing. Only after 24 years has this restriction been lifted,
allowing the film to be aired on public television for the first time in early 1993. Nonetheless, while the
legal entanglements have apparently dissipated, the moral quandary still remains, and it tugs hard at those
who partake of this film.

Named after the annual talent show held at Bridgeport in which both prisoners and staff participate,
Titicut Follies is a highly charged polemic that, by necessity, moves its viewers both intellectually
and emotionally. The documentary would be a useful addition to classes which deal with punishment,
deviance, treatment, ethics, and possibly even research design because it raises basic questions concerning
the identification and control of individuals deemed deviant by the larger society, or at least the criminal
justice and mental health systems. In addition, it forces viewers, albeit not intentionally, to consider the
moral and ethical boundaries which pertain to the observation and study of human beings.

When does one cross the line from a reasoned and informative examination of the human condition to a
systematic exploitation of individuals aimed at rattling one's own ideological saber? On what
moral basis do we and should we determine who shall be the kept and who shall be the keeper? Are there
readily identifiable characteristics which distinguish the two? These questions and more need to be explored,
and this film provides a useful mechanism for making them more salient to undergraduates and professionals
alike. Given its rich theoretical content and the power with which it speaks to the audience, this film is a
fantastic pedagogical tool. Accordingly, it receives four gavels on the Journal of Criminal Justice and
Popular Culture's esteemed rating scale and comes highly recommended.

Trivia: TITICUT FOLLIES je bil prepovedan skoraj cetrt stoletja in je bil do sedaj predvajan preko mnozicnega medija samo enkrat; 1992 na PBS.

07.07.2006, 13:32
A tale Wiseman ima judovske korenine?:shy: :D

07.07.2006, 13:38
Kje, klena Arijska rasa :approve:

07.07.2006, 13:43
Deutschland Deutschland ueber Alles..:D Ali ipak so zasluženo izgubili in se bodo borili za 3. mesto.
Wiseman - nisi me prepričal. Za mene je tale priimek judovski. Še en dokaz več, da so izvoljeno ljudstvo.:D :angel: :censored: :rolling:

07.07.2006, 14:18
Zaradi teh supkov sem nehal gledati futbal. In jasno tiste zidovske slovaske ****e, ki me je naterala na fizicno obracunavanje s platnom (nelomljive stvari so lom :D). No, saj niso nic krivi, pozitivno so presenetili, ampak tekma je sramota za FIFA-o in cel nogometni svet.

D'oh!, da je Zid. Pac malo sarkazma.