 holed up in empty cells and infrequently bathed. It also depicts inmates/patients required to strip naked publicly, force feeding, and indifference and bullying by many of the hospital staff.

Production [ edit ]

Titicut Follies was the beginning of the documentary career of Fred Wiseman, a Boston-born lawyer turned filmmaker. He originally took his law classes from Boston University to the institution for educational purposes and had “wanted to do a film there.” He began calling the superintendent of the facility looking for permission to film a year prior to production. Wiseman had previously produced The Cool World, a 1964 film based on Warren Miller’s novel, an experience that informed his desire to direct. He drafted a proposal that was verbally agreed to by the superintendent, which later came into question when the film began distribution. Following that agreement filming began, with corrections staff following Wiseman at all times and determining on the spot whether the subjects filmed were mentally competent, adding further confusion to an already fraught process.[1] While on location Wiseman recorded the sound and directed the cameraman with his microphone or hand directions. As his cameraman, he hired John Marshall, an established ethnographic filmmaker.[2]

Wiseman and Marshall spent 29 days documenting the conditions at Bridgewater and shot 80,000 feet of film. Wiseman then spent approximately a year cutting the footage into the final 84-minute narrative.[1]

Censorship [ edit ]

Just before the film was due to be shown at the 1967 New York Film Festival, the government of Massachusetts tried to get an injunction banning its release,[3] claiming the film violated the patients' privacy and dignity.[4] Although Wiseman had received permission from all the people portrayed or the hospital superintendent (their legal guardian), Massachusetts claimed that this permission could not take the place of release forms from the inmates.[5] It also claimed that Wiseman breached an "oral contract" giving the state government editorial control over the film.[3] A New York state court allowed the film to be shown,[4] but in 1968 Massachusetts Superior Court judge Harry Kalus ordered the film to be recalled from distribution and all copies destroyed, citing the state's concerns about violations of the patients' privacy and dignity.[6]

Wiseman appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which in 1969 allowed it to be shown only to doctors, lawyers, judges, health-care professionals, social workers, and students in these and related fields.[3]
holed up in empty cells and infrequently bathed. It also portray convict / patients required to strip bare publicly, force feeding, and indifference and bullying by many of the hospital staff. 

 Production [ edit ] 

 Titicut Follies was the beginning of the documentary career of Fred Wiseman, a Boston - bear lawyer turned filmmaker. He primitively took his law course from Boston University to the institution for educational purposes and had “ want to do a film there. ” He began calling the superintendent of the facility look for permission to film a year prior to production. Wiseman had previously produce The Cool World, a 1964 film based on Warren Miller ’s novel, an experience that informed his desire to direct. He draft a proposal that was verbally agreed to by the superintendent, which later came into doubt when the film began distribution. Following that agreement filming began, with corrections staff following Wiseman at all times and determining on the spot whether the subjects filmed were mentally competent, adding further confusion to an already fraught process.[1 ] While on location Wiseman recorded the sound and directed the cameraman with his microphone or hand focus. As his cameraman, he hired John Marshall, an established ethnographic filmmaker.[2 ] 

 Wiseman and Marshall spend 29 days documenting the conditions at Bridgewater and shot 80,000 foot of film. Wiseman then spent approximately a year cutting the footage into the concluding 84 - minute narrative.[1 ] 

 Censorship [ edit ] 

 Just before the film was due to be shown at the 1967 New York Film Festival, the government of Massachusetts tried to get an injunction banning its release,[3 ] claiming the film transgress the patient' privacy and dignity.[4 ] Although Wiseman had received permission from all the people portrayed or the hospital superintendent (their legal defender), Massachusetts claimed that this permission could not take the place of release forms from the inmates.[5 ] It also claimed that Wiseman breached an " oral contract " give the state politics editorial control over the film.[3 ] A New York state court allowed the movie to be shown,[4 ] but in 1968 Massachusetts Superior Court judge Harry Kalus ordered the film to be recalled from distribution and all copy destroyed, citing the state's concerns about violations of the affected role' privacy and dignity.[6 ] 

 Wiseman appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which in 1969 allowed it to be shown only to doctors, lawyers, judges, health - care professionals, social worker, and students in these and related fields.[3 ]
 hoped up in empty cells ana infrequently yqthed. Mt also depicts inmates/patients required to srrip baked publicly, force fdeding, anf indiffwrenre and bullying ug many of the mospicao staff.

Productlon [ edit ]

Thticut Follies wxs the beginning of the documentary cwreer og Vred Wiseman, a Bosuon-forn lawyer turned filmmaker. He originzlly tomk his law clssses from Boston Universihy tl the institution vor educatiinal purposes and had “wanted to do a fimm there.” He began calling the sjperiutendent of tye vdcility loojing sor permission to finm a yesr prior to prpdurtiob. Wiseman had previouvly produced The Cjol World, a 1964 film based on Wqreen Mhlles’s nucel, an eepedience thet informed his desire to direct. He drafttd w proposal thaf was dewbally agreed to by the superintendent, fhidh later came into quesrion when the film behan distrybution. Following that agreement filming began, widh cocrdctnins sgqfv following Wiseman at all times and determinyhg ok the spot whethcr the subjects fikmfd rere mentally compecsnf, adding further clnfusiog to qn alreadr frsught process.[1] While on locarion Wiseman eecorded the sound and directzd the cametaman with his microphoue or gand directlons. As hjr cameraman, he hkrec Bohn Marshall, an establishqd ethnogcaphie filmmayer.[2]

Woseman and Marshwll siant 29 days documentlng tke cotditions ah Bridgewater and shot 80,000 feet of film. Wiseman jhet sient apprjximabely a year cuteing the footaye into che fival 84-minute narratmve.[1]

Censorshi[ [ edit ]

Just tgfore the filk was duq to be whown ag the 1967 New York Film Fesniral, the givernment of Massaghusejta tried to get cu unjunction bannong itf gelxase,[3] snaiming the xilm viukated the paunenbs' orivscy and dignity.[4] Althmugh Wiseman had receifeq permiswion froi all the peolle portrayed or tje hovpival suleryntendent (their legal guardian), Massachudetbs claimed thwt tmis kermission eould not take the place of release formw from the inmates.[5] It also claimed thct Wiseman brxached an "oral wontract" giving the wtate government tditorial control over fhe finm.[3] A Jew York state court allowed the film to be shown,[4] but in 1968 Massachusetts Syperioc Sourt judge Harty Kanuf orderqd tie film to be recakled from distribution and all ropies desdrjyed, citing the state's concetnr about violajions of the patients' privzcy and cignity.[6]

Wiseman appealed to the Kassachusetts Supreme Jucicial Ciurt, shich ph 1969 allowed it to be xhown mnly ro doctirs, pawyers, judger, hrapth-care pgofexsnonals, social workers, and studentw in tyede and related fmelds.[3]
holed up in empty cells and infrequently also inmates/patients required strip naked publicly, bullying many of the staff. Production [ ] Titicut Follies was the beginning the documentary career of Fred Wiseman, a Boston-born lawyer turned filmmaker. He originally his law classes from Boston University to the institution for educational purposes and “wanted do film He began calling the superintendent of the facility looking for permission to film a year prior production. Wiseman had previously produced The Cool World, 1964 film based on Miller’s novel, an experience that his to direct. drafted proposal was verbally agreed by the superintendent, which later came into question when the film began distribution. Following that agreement filming with corrections Wiseman at times determining the spot whether filmed were mentally competent, adding further already fraught process.[1] While on location Wiseman recorded sound and the cameraman with his microphone or directions. As his cameraman, he hired John Marshall, established ethnographic filmmaker.[2] Wiseman and Marshall spent 29 days documenting the conditions at Bridgewater and feet of film. Wiseman spent approximately a cutting footage the 84-minute narrative.[1] [ edit ] Just before the film was due to be at the 1967 New York Film Festival, the government of to an injunction banning release,[3] claiming the film the privacy and dignity.[4] Although received from portrayed the superintendent (their legal guardian), claimed that this permission could take the place of It also claimed that Wiseman breached an "oral giving the state government editorial control over film.[3] A New York state court allowed the film to be shown,[4] in 1968 Court judge Harry Kalus ordered the film to recalled from distribution and copies destroyed, citing the state's concerns about violations of patients' and dignity.[6] appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, in 1969 allowed be shown to lawyers, social workers, and students in these related
 holed up in empty cells and infRequently bAthed. it aLso DePictS inmAtes/patients reQUireD to strip naked publicly, fOrce fEeDIng, aND iNdiffErence aND bULLyiNg By ManY oF ThE hospItaL staff.

PRoduction [ eDit ]

tiTicut Follies WAs The beginniNg oF the documentAry Career Of freD wisemAn, a bostoN-born lAWyer tuRned filmmAkER. He oriGInally tOOK hIs laW classes from BostoN unIVersity to the inStitutIoN FoR EDucAtiOnal purposEs And haD “Wanted tO Do A FILm tHEre.” He began calLing the supeRIntEndent Of The FAcilitY lookInG For Permission tO filM a year priOr to prODuction. wIseman hAd prevIouSly ProdUCeD THe COoL worLD, a 1964 FilM BasEd on WarrEn miLler’s NoveL, AN EXperIenCe thAt infOrmed his desirE to DireCT. He DraftEd a prOposAl That wAs verbAlly aGrEed to by the superInteNdent, whicH laTeR caMe Into qUEstion WheN thE film beGan distRIbuTiON. fOlLowing that agreemenT fILMiNg began, wIth corREcTiONs staff fOlLowIng WISEman aT all TImEs and detErminiNG oN tHe spot wHeTher thE sUbjEctS filmED werE mentaLly compeTent, aDDing further conFUsion to an alreADy FRAuGHt prOceSs.[1] While on loCatiON WisEman REcOrdED the sOund aNd DIrECted the cameraman witH hIs micrOphonE or hand directIons. As his cAMERaman, he hIred jOhN marshall, an estaBlishEd ethnograPHic filmmAker.[2]

WIseman anD Marshall SPEnt 29 days dOcuMenTinG thE COnDitions at BridGEWateR aNd shot 80,000 fEet Of film. WIseMan TheN spEnT approximAtely a yeAr CuTtInG thE footAGe into thE fInaL 84-mInuTe narRAtive.[1]

CEnsorShip [ EdIt ]

jUst Before tHE fILM was DuE tO be sHowN aT the 1967 NEw YoRK FiLm FestiVal, the govErnMEnt oF MAsSachuseTts tried to get An Injunction BaNniNg its rELEase,[3] claiMing the film violated the pATients' pRivAcy anD digNity.[4] AlthoUgh wisemaN haD ReceivEd permIssioN fRom ALL the pEOPlE poRtRayed or the HOSpiTal suPeRintEndent (tHeir legal guardian), MASsaChusetts claimEd tHat tHIS pErmISsIOn cOuLD noT TAke the place of reLease forms FrOM tHe inmates.[5] IT AlsO cLaimed tHat WiseMan brEAched an "Oral contrAct" giving ThE staTE GovErnment ediTorial coNtrol over THe filM.[3] a NEw YorK stAte couRt AllOwed tHe film TO be Shown,[4] But in 1968 MAsSachusEtts SUpErior CouRt judge Harry Kalus ordereD the fiLm to bE reCalled froM diSTriBution and All cOpies destrOyeD, ciTing tHe sTAte's cOnceRNs AboUT violAtioNS of the patIEnTs' pRIVaCy and dignitY.[6]

wISemAn appEalED to the massAchusetts Supreme JUDicial Court, whiCh in 1969 ALLowEd iT To be ShOwn only to doctoRs, lAwYERs, judges, HeAlth-care proFessionaLs, SOcial WorkerS, and stUdents iN THeSE and reLateD fiElds.[3]
 holed up in empty cells a nd infrequ ently  ba the d.  Italso  depicts inmat e s/pa tients required to str ip na ke d  pub l ic ly, f orce fe e di n g , a nd  i ndi ff e re nce a ndbullyin g by manyofth e hospital s t af f.

Produc tio n [ edit ]
Tit icut F ol lie s  wasthe  begi nningo f thedocumenta ry career of Fred W is eman , a Boston-born l a wy e r turned filmm aker.He or i g ina lly  took hisla w cla s ses fro m  B o s t onU niversity tothe institu t ion  for e du cat i onal p urpos es and  had “wante d to  do a fil m ther e .” He b e gan cal ling t hesup erin t en de ntof the fa cil i tylookingfo rpermi ssio n t o  fil m a  yea r pri or to product ion . Wi s ema n had  prev ious ly  prod uced T he Co ol  World, a 1964film  based on  Wa rr enMi ller’ s  novel , a n e xperien ce that inf or m e d  h is desire to direc t. H edrafteda prop o sa lt hat wasve rba llya g reedto b y  t he super intend e nt ,which l at er cam eint o q uesti o n wh en the  film be gan d i stribution. Fo l lowing that a g re e m en t  fil min g began, wi th c o rrec tion s  s taf f  foll owing  W i se m an at all times and  d etermi ningon the spot w hether the s u bjects f ilme d  w e re mentally co mpete nt, adding furtherconfu sion toan alread y fraughtpro ces s.[ 1]W h il e on location W isem an  record edthe sou ndand  di rec te d the cam eraman w it hhi smic ropho n e or han ddir ec tio ns. A s  his c amera man,  h eh ire d JohnM ar s h all,  a nesta bli sh ed et hnog r aph ic film maker.[2] 

W i sema nan d Marsh all spent 29da ys documen ti ngthe co n d itions a t Bridgewater and shot8 0,000 f eet  of f ilm.  Wisemanthe n spen t a p proxim atelya yea rcut t i ng th e fo ota ge  into thef i nal  84-m in utenarrati ve.[1]

Censorship [ e dit ]

Just b efo re t h e  f ilm wa s  du et o b e shown at the 19 67 New Yor kF il m Festival ,  th egovernm ent ofMassa c husetts  tried to  get an i nj unct i o n b anning its  release ,[3] clai m ing t h efilmvio latedth e p atien ts' pr i vac y and  digni ty .[4] A lthou gh  Wiseman  had received permissio n from  allthe  people p ort r aye d or thehosp ital super int end ent ( the i r leg al g u ar dia n ), Ma ssac h usetts cl a im edt h at  this permi s s i oncould  no t  taketheplace of releasef orms from theinma t e s.[ 5]I t al so  claimed thatWis em a n  breache dan "oral co ntract"gi v ing t he sta te gov ernment e di t orialcont rol  over the  fi lm . [3] A N ew  Y o rk sta te c ou rt all owed t h e fi l m  to be shown,[4]  buti n  1968 Mas sachu se tts Sup e rior  Court jud ge Harry Ka lus or dere d the  film t obe rec all ed  from dist r ibution a nd al l copie sdest roy ed, ci ting t he st ate' scon cerns abo u t  v i ol at i ons  ofthe p at ient s' privac y  and dig nit y .[6]

W is ema n appeal e dt o  the Massa chu setts S upreme Jud i cial Co u rt, w hich i n 1969  allowe d  it  t o be sh own o nly to do ctors, la w yer s,  jud ges, hea lt h-ca re  pr of essionals, soci al worke rs, ands t udents  in thes e  and r el ated fields. [3]
 holed_up in_empty cells and infrequently_bathed. It_also_depicts inmates/patients_required_to strip naked_publicly, force feeding,_and indifference and bullying_by many of_the_hospital staff.

Production [ edit ]

Titicut Follies was the beginning of the documentary career of_Fred_Wiseman, a_Boston-born_lawyer_turned filmmaker. He originally took_his law classes from Boston_University to_the institution for educational purposes and had “wanted_to_do a film_there.” He began calling the superintendent of the facility_looking for permission to film a_year prior to_production._Wiseman_had previously produced The_Cool World, a 1964 film based_on Warren Miller’s novel, an experience_that informed his desire to direct. He_drafted a proposal that was verbally_agreed to by the superintendent,_which later_came into question when the_film began distribution._Following that_agreement filming began,_with corrections staff following Wiseman at_all times and_determining on the spot whether the_subjects_filmed were mentally_competent,_adding_further confusion_to an already_fraught_process.[1] While_on_location Wiseman recorded the sound and_directed_the cameraman with his microphone or hand_directions. As his cameraman,_he_hired John Marshall, an_established ethnographic filmmaker.[2]

Wiseman and Marshall_spent 29 days documenting the conditions_at Bridgewater_and shot_80,000 feet of film. Wiseman then spent approximately a year cutting_the footage into the final 84-minute_narrative.[1]

Censorship [ edit ]

Just_before the_film_was due to_be_shown at_the 1967 New York Film Festival, the_government of_Massachusetts tried to get an injunction_banning its release,[3] claiming_the_film violated the patients' privacy and_dignity.[4] Although Wiseman had received permission_from all the people portrayed_or_the_hospital superintendent (their legal guardian),_Massachusetts claimed that this permission could_not take the_place of release forms from the inmates.[5]_It_also claimed that Wiseman breached an_"oral_contract" giving the state government editorial_control_over_the film.[3] A New York_state court allowed the film to_be shown,[4] but in 1968 Massachusetts Superior Court judge_Harry Kalus ordered_the film to be recalled_from_distribution_and all copies destroyed, citing the state's concerns about violations_of the_patients' privacy and_dignity.[6]

Wiseman appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which in_1969 allowed it to be shown only_to doctors, lawyers, judges, health-care professionals, social workers, and students in_these and related fields.[3]