Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, and welcome to the Summer Movie Playlist. Chuck
Speaker 1: here introducing today's show, which is I think maybe the
Speaker 1: last one in the series on Teddy Cut Folly. So
Speaker 1: this is not I guess we're ending on sort of
Speaker 1: a down note because this isn't some fun talk about
Speaker 1: a fun movie. It's some pretty serious talk about a
Speaker 1: pretty sad documentary. But it's a remarkable film in its
Speaker 1: own way and has its place in film history. So
Speaker 1: we thought it was a pretty good episode. We hope
Speaker 1: you enjoyed it all over again. Welcome to Stuff you
Speaker 1: should Know, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh and there's
Speaker 2: Chuck and this is stuff you should know. Just us today.
Speaker 2: Jerry's on vacation and that's cool.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jerry's in the Disney World. Ye kind of went
Speaker 3: right after me.
Speaker 2: She's in the in the d.
Speaker 1: I said, hey, Jerry, and the South bathroom of Frontierland,
Speaker 1: above the toilet I've left. I've taped a gun. Go
Speaker 1: shoot Mo Green, Go shoot Mo Green in the restaurant booth.
Speaker 2: Wow, no, Mo Green got it in the on the
Speaker 2: massage tape.
Speaker 3: Oh that's right.
Speaker 2: Police Commissioner or the police chief.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can't believe he.
Speaker 2: Was tangential to the hit with the bathroom. I don't
Speaker 2: remember who was trying to hit.
Speaker 3: That's right. I goofed that up. Hey, shout out to uh.
Speaker 2: Wait, no, we're not done sorting this out.
Speaker 3: Okay, go ahead, name all the hits in the Godfather.
Speaker 1: Shout out to our pal and friend of the show,
Speaker 1: Kevin Pollock, because that made me think of the great,
Speaker 1: great show that is one of my favorite shows called
Speaker 1: Better Things from the wonderful talented Pamela Adlin. They are
Speaker 1: entering their final season and I watched the first episode
Speaker 1: the other night and Pollock, who plays her brother on
Speaker 1: the show, had a great line that I knew was
Speaker 1: improved where he was getting in his car and I
Speaker 1: can't remember what they were talking about, and he said
Speaker 1: right in the eye like Mae Green. And I texted
Speaker 1: him immediately and I was like, right in the eye
Speaker 1: like mo Green. I was like, that was yours and
Speaker 1: he went, oh yeah, he said that was improv nice.
Speaker 1: It was very fun, and it's always fun to be
Speaker 1: able to watch a TV show and text your pal
Speaker 1: that's on that TV.
Speaker 2: Show, right, Yeah, he's got the best parts. He just
Speaker 2: pops up in all the best stuff. You know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's in masl He's I think, And I've talked
Speaker 1: to Pollock about this and he's like, yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: I think he could star in a really great indie film.
Speaker 1: I just think he's a really great actor and he's
Speaker 1: great at comedy. But I think he's, on top of that,
Speaker 1: just a really really great actor.
Speaker 2: Didn't he star in that Project green Light film? I
Speaker 2: don't know, did he which pretty I'm pretty sure I
Speaker 2: think the first season?
Speaker 1: Oh boy, I don't remember those movies. I know that
Speaker 1: Shila Both that was where he got his start.
Speaker 2: Is that right?
Speaker 3: Was he in one of those the Battle of Shaker
Speaker 3: Heights or something?
Speaker 2: I think that might have been the one that Pollock was.
Speaker 3: Was he in that? I think of that movie? But
Speaker 3: I mean a really good movie. I'm not sure the
Speaker 3: Project green Light moves, but it was a cool show though,
Speaker 3: I dug it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Surrily hadn't brought that back in the iPhone
Speaker 1: filmmaking age.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a little surprising who would be who would
Speaker 2: bring it back? Though?
Speaker 3: Now Ben and ma could bring him back. I mean
Speaker 3: they that's who did it.
Speaker 2: The first time, right, sure, But I mean are they
Speaker 2: still relevant? Aren't there two? Like younger versions of the.
Speaker 3: New and Math better? I don't know who the new
Speaker 3: Ben and Matt are.
Speaker 2: How about whiz Khalifah.
Speaker 3: And Charlomagne the God?
Speaker 2: Sure there? You all right?
Speaker 3: Great anyway? Keppa Bok's a great actor and a good dude.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agreed, And probably somebody I would guess who's
Speaker 2: seen the movie that we're going to talk about today.
Speaker 2: I would be really surprised if he has it, just
Speaker 2: because I feel like, if you are into movies, if
Speaker 2: you're a movie maker, if you are if you consider
Speaker 2: yourself a cinema file, if you want to get punched
Speaker 2: in the stomach, you've probably seen Titty Cut Follies, right, Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Mean this is one that I saw in film class
Speaker 1: in college. It is one that you there's about a
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty chance that you will see this if
Speaker 1: you've seen it in film class in a college. People
Speaker 1: like Casey, our colleague Casey Pegram, no doubt. As a
Speaker 1: Frederick Weisman fan, I'm surely if I texted him me,
Speaker 1: but oh sure, Weisman. Yes, Although I found Tittcut Follies
Speaker 1: was not one of his greatest works.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that sounds like Casey.
Speaker 1: God Bless Casey all time greatest movie crush guests. But yeah,
Speaker 1: Fred Weisman made this film. He was a law professor
Speaker 1: in his thirties in the sixties and made this documentary
Speaker 1: film about a mental institution, specifically one for the criminally insane,
Speaker 1: that's what they called it. Yeah, and it was a
Speaker 1: very you know, it was a movie that gained a
Speaker 1: lot of reputation as like the most disturbing film you've
Speaker 1: ever seen, and it's been banned in this many places
Speaker 1: and and that kind of thing.
Speaker 3: But when you kind of.
Speaker 1: Peel it back, it's just a very straight up, sort
Speaker 1: of cinema verite documentary about a institution that needed to
Speaker 1: get their act together.
Speaker 2: Right, And that was kind of Wiseman told jam like,
Speaker 2: he's made forty eight films. I think he just turned
Speaker 2: ninety two a couple months ago, amazing, and starting in
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty six, he made about a film a year. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and he has his own style, like you said, cinema verite,
Speaker 2: which I feel like we should probably kind of just
Speaker 2: go ahead and explain, don't you sure, Yeah, go ahead,
Speaker 2: go ahead, film guy.
Speaker 1: Uh, Well, cinema verite. I mean, what's the direct translation,
Speaker 1: direct cinema. Yeah, direct cinema. And it's the idea that
Speaker 1: you kind of set a camera up and let it
Speaker 1: let life happen in front of it for whatever your
Speaker 1: subject is. You don't you don't do interviews, you don't
Speaker 1: do talking head shots, you don't you it's really just uh.
Speaker 1: One good example is that documentary and that, of course
Speaker 1: now I can't think of it in the seventies about
Speaker 1: the American family that ran on PBS that was so
Speaker 1: groundbreaking where they just set up a camera and followed
Speaker 1: this family. And if you're thinking it sounds a lot
Speaker 1: like reality TV, I think, and it's purest form reality
Speaker 1: TV can be this, but it really turned into something
Speaker 1: else entirely.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just so deeply manipulated by producers behind the
Speaker 2: scenes who tell them to do this or that or whatever. Yeah,
Speaker 2: cinema verites would would not would not want to do that.
Speaker 2: They just shoot and hope hope also that people act
Speaker 2: like themselves. It's another thing. And yeah, one thing. Frederick Wiseman,
Speaker 2: the guy who made Titty Cut Follies, said like he
Speaker 2: believed that people basically acted like themselves when the camera
Speaker 2: was around, because people are in general lousy actors.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we cant to that.
Speaker 2: They're behaving like you would expect them to behave, so
Speaker 2: they're probably acting like they would without the cameras, but
Speaker 2: especially in a cinema verite kind of setup, because it's
Speaker 2: it's intrusive. There's a camera there, but it's not nearly
Speaker 2: as intrusive as like a camera on like some rig
Speaker 2: that's flying around, or like there's lighting people and gaffers
Speaker 2: and a craft services table that's calling your name, but
Speaker 2: it's just much less intrusive than that. It's minimally intrusive
Speaker 2: as far as filmmaking goes, and that's the point of it,
Speaker 2: because they want to document reality without leading the viewer
Speaker 2: as much as possible.
Speaker 3: From what I understand, Yeah, that's exactly it.
Speaker 1: And I love cinema verite documentaries especially, and I also
Speaker 1: like sort of quasi cinema verite where there's a lot
Speaker 1: of like I don't mind interviews being put in there
Speaker 1: as long as there's a lot of just sort of
Speaker 1: watching life happen. It's really amazingly engrossing. There were these
Speaker 1: two filmmakers that I think inspired Weissman, Richard Leecock, and
Speaker 1: Robert Drew, who in the early I think in the
Speaker 1: fifties and early nineteen sixties were kind of dabbling in
Speaker 1: cinema verite documentaries, and they made one in particular called
Speaker 1: Mooney Versus Fowl, which is about a high school football
Speaker 1: championship and Mooney and Fowl are the two coaches, and
Speaker 1: I watched the trailer for that today. I guess I'm
Speaker 1: guessing it's his daughter that put this up on vimeo,
Speaker 1: along with some other interviews with her dad, Drew's daughter,
Speaker 1: that it's really engrossing just to watch, and especially because
Speaker 1: all you see if you're a modern person in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two and you're like, what was life like in
Speaker 1: the nineteen fifties, you don't get that from I love
Speaker 1: Lucy and Dick Van Dyke, Like those are great shows,
Speaker 1: but to be able to just sit in and take
Speaker 1: a peek at these high school football coaches and the
Speaker 1: people the community in the stands and these players, like
Speaker 1: it's just so engrossing to me. Not everyone's cup of tea,
Speaker 1: but I really like it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, totally, but yeah, I feel like, even even
Speaker 2: if it isn't your cup of tea. You would, like
Speaker 2: you said, be engrossed by it. I don't think there's
Speaker 2: any way to just be like I don't know, some
Speaker 2: people would probably find it dull. There, I'm sure there are,
Speaker 2: but it's it's just it is engrossing. I don't think
Speaker 2: there's any other way to universally describe it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Drew, I sent you that one little interview snip,
Speaker 1: and I don't know if you saw it, but he
Speaker 1: sort of was talking about being a new form of journalism. Yeah,
Speaker 1: where he talked about you know, it's like a you know,
Speaker 1: they're like, well what is this though, and he's like, well,
Speaker 1: it's like a play without a playwriter, a movie without actors,
Speaker 1: or journalism without opinions. And I was like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: that's interesting to say in the nineteen fifties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all the way back then.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's they saw it as leelock, and I
Speaker 1: think Drew saw it more as a form of journalism.
Speaker 1: And I feel like that's what documentaries used to be,
Speaker 1: and that's changed a lot, sometimes for the better. It
Speaker 1: can be all things, I guess, but it seems like
Speaker 1: documentaries used to be way more journalism and less a
Speaker 1: big time entertainment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what do you think about How do you feel
Speaker 2: about recreations and documentaries?
Speaker 1: I think it can be cool if you have a good, uh,
Speaker 1: like a new spin on it, kind of like when
Speaker 1: the kid Stays in the picture came out the documentary
Speaker 1: about the producer.
Speaker 3: What's his face.
Speaker 1: Robert Evans, Yeah, Robert Godfather, Yes, exactly, full circle. They
Speaker 1: did those recreations through animation and this really cool style
Speaker 1: of animation that was really engaging and awesome, and like,
Speaker 1: recrease can be really cool if you do it right,
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, or really bad if it's like some
Speaker 1: dumb cop show on TV.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, like, but those are kind of fun too. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you mean like the one Headline News shows it one
Speaker 2: hundred episodes a day, Forensic Files.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen it, but it's the recrease I'm thinking
Speaker 1: of where it's like, you know, they recreated murder on
Speaker 1: like yet.
Speaker 3: Five hundred dollars to shoot this.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly right. Yeah, you're thinking of Forensic Files.
Speaker 2: But still, if you watch enough of it, it'll really
Speaker 2: like your whole life will turn dark. Yeah, I would
Speaker 2: be careful with Fransic Files.
Speaker 1: Everybody, So should we go back and talk about Bridgewater
Speaker 1: State Hospital.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because this is the place where Frederick Wiseman showed
Speaker 2: up with his camera with permission, as we'll see. And
Speaker 2: by the time he got there in nineteen I think
Speaker 2: he shot in nineteen sixty five, maybe nineteen sixty six, yeah,
Speaker 2: sixty six, Okay, when he got there, it had been
Speaker 2: around for over one hundred years. It didn't start out
Speaker 2: as a state hospital. It started out as a poor house,
Speaker 2: an almshouse, I think, all the way back in eighteen
Speaker 2: fifty four.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's interesting when you read these it's disturbing.
Speaker 1: But when you read these old timey classifications in medicine
Speaker 1: or especially in mental health, where someone be you know,
Speaker 1: the description of someone that might be put there might
Speaker 1: just be bad.
Speaker 3: Like that's one of the descriptions.
Speaker 2: Right, Like that'd be on par with like labeling them
Speaker 2: alcoholic or schizophrenia or something like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know, if you were if you had
Speaker 1: an alcohol problem, or you had legitimate you know, mental
Speaker 1: health issues, or if you were pregnant maybe or blind,
Speaker 1: or you had syphilis, you might have been put in
Speaker 1: this poorhouse in eighteen fifty four.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: So in Massachusetts, by the way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know if we said that or not. Yeah,
Speaker 2: So that's how it started out. And then over time
Speaker 2: they started adding criminals and focused more on criminals and
Speaker 2: the mentally ill, and then by the time eighteen ninety
Speaker 2: five rolled around, it became the State Asylum for Insane
Speaker 2: Criminals at the State Workhouse at Bridgewater, and then eventually
Speaker 2: it became known as Bridgewater State Hospital, I think by
Speaker 2: nineteen oh nine, and then very crucially here it was
Speaker 2: handed over from the State Board of Charity, because remember
Speaker 2: it started out as a poorhouse over to the Massachusetts
Speaker 2: Beerau of Prison. So, for all intents and purposes, at
Speaker 2: least bureaucratically speaking, is a place where the criminally insane,
Speaker 2: how they were termed in the twentieth century as are held.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and there were some bad criminals in there. I mean,
Speaker 1: there were murderers, There were people who were convicted of cannibalism,
Speaker 1: of rape of children, or just generally of rape. So
Speaker 1: there were some bad dudes in there, for sure. But
Speaker 1: then there were also and this was sort of one
Speaker 1: of the saddest things about sort of that time in
Speaker 1: this country, those people were right alongside other people who
Speaker 1: either committed a very minor crime, or maybe didn't commit
Speaker 1: a crime at all, and they were just quite unquote
Speaker 1: being held there temporarily, but that could stretch on into years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's still something today called civil commitment, and it's
Speaker 2: basically that you were being held not because of a
Speaker 2: crime or because of a minor crime, and you maybe
Speaker 2: you've even served your sentence, but you're being held because
Speaker 2: you had been deemed mentally unfit to return to society,
Speaker 2: even though maybe you didn't even start out like in
Speaker 2: a mental hospital. Maybe you started out in jail and
Speaker 2: then you're just a trouble maker. They considered you a
Speaker 2: troublemaker in jail and you got sent to the hospital.
Speaker 2: At that point, your sentence was just it just went away.
Speaker 2: It was you were there until a doctor decided you
Speaker 2: should be let out. And the problem was getting the
Speaker 2: attention of a doctor long enough to say, oh, actually
Speaker 2: you're you're fine, yeah, and let you out was really
Speaker 2: difficult to do. And so it was a really desperate place,
Speaker 2: especially for people who didn't feel like they should be there,
Speaker 2: belong there, because after a while it seemed to exert
Speaker 2: its influence on your mind and your outlook, and it
Speaker 2: would bend you to reflect it so that you kind
Speaker 2: of needed to be there after a while, even if
Speaker 2: you didn't start out that way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, anyone who's ever seen One Floor with
Speaker 1: the Cuckoo's Nest is kind of exactly that happens in
Speaker 1: the plot. Like people got worse at these places, right,
Speaker 1: And you mentioned the medical actual medical attention. President of
Speaker 1: the Massachusetts Bar Association at the time, Paul Tamborello, and
Speaker 1: a big thanks to Livia for digging this up and
Speaker 1: putting us together for us. But he told the Harvard
Speaker 1: Crimson back then that of the six hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: men held at the hospital at the time, actual medical
Speaker 1: staff were able to see less than half of them
Speaker 1: one time a year for about twenty minutes. So other
Speaker 1: than that, you're like, well, then who was it. If
Speaker 1: it wasn't medical staff, it was like prison guards basically.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: And even then when you did get that twenty minutes,
Speaker 2: you were confronted by a person or group of people
Speaker 2: who were going on the premise that everything you said
Speaker 2: came out of your mouth was looney, right, and not
Speaker 2: based in reality or fact, no matter how well you
Speaker 2: put your case or stated your case or complained like
Speaker 2: any show of emotion would just prove to them that
Speaker 2: you were meant to be in there for another year
Speaker 2: until they could hopefully see you again and reevaluate you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was this one example Olivia found of jeez,
Speaker 1: it's hard to believe. Matteo Kalakochi was arrested in nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty seven, at my daughter's age, almost seven years old,
Speaker 1: for stealing seven bucks from a grocery store, which is
Speaker 1: pretty good take in nineteen twenty seven, by the way,
Speaker 1: and he was found incompetent to stay in trial and
Speaker 1: then sent to kind of sent all around over the
Speaker 1: years to different institutions. After he tried to escape in
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty five, was eventually landed at Bridgewater and this
Speaker 1: was another one of those archaic terms. Was charged with
Speaker 1: bad habits and resisting authority, and this seven year old
Speaker 1: eventually ended up here later in life, but stayed there
Speaker 1: for twenty eight years and released in nineteen sixty three.
Speaker 3: So that's just just.
Speaker 1: One example of how like sort of a small petty crime,
Speaker 1: but if you maybe have an attitude or your troublemaker
Speaker 1: as a kid, and you bounce around from place to place,
Speaker 1: you just might wind up here with no one advocating
Speaker 1: for you. Kind of this all made me think of
Speaker 1: like what families were doing. But I guess at the
Speaker 1: time some families were kind of like maybe convinced themselves
Speaker 1: they were better off there, or they didn't want to
Speaker 1: deal with the trouble, or there were no family I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, or all the family was poor and had no
Speaker 2: influence over anybody, so they couldn't do anything about it.
Speaker 3: Very sad. So we take a break, Yeah, I say, we.
Speaker 2: Take a break and we'll come back with Wiseman and
Speaker 2: his tenuere while he was at Bridgewater. So Frederick Wiseman
Speaker 2: had an interesting origin story as a filmmaker. He was
Speaker 2: He went to law school at Yale supposedly to get
Speaker 2: out of the Korean War draft, but then when he graduated,
Speaker 2: he still ended up getting drafted anyway, and he was
Speaker 2: in there for almost.
Speaker 3: Two years kind of after the war.
Speaker 2: But yeah, yeah, but I still I'll bet he was
Speaker 2: not happy about being drafted either way. Sure, so he
Speaker 2: he went he I guess went to Korea for a
Speaker 2: couple of years, and then after the army he and
Speaker 2: his wife what is her name.
Speaker 3: Is Zora Batshaw?
Speaker 2: Great name yeah, she was a law professor as well.
Speaker 2: They went to Paris, lived for a couple of years,
Speaker 2: and then decided they need to move back, so they
Speaker 2: moved back to like the Boston area. But while there
Speaker 2: Frederi Wiseman got into filmmaking. He started just shooting stuff
Speaker 2: with a little eight millimeter camera, about the time that
Speaker 2: cinema verite was being developed in France.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: So, like you said, he came back from France, started
Speaker 1: teaching law at BU and sort of had that filmmaking
Speaker 1: bug still. So he bought the rights to a book,
Speaker 1: a novel called The Cool World about poverty and Harlem,
Speaker 1: and he hired a woman named Shirley Clark Clark sorry
Speaker 1: to direct it. And it was a very small I
Speaker 1: don't think it was much of a big film at all,
Speaker 1: but it was a very small sort of indie film
Speaker 1: at the time, which is to say it was probably
Speaker 1: not seen much. But Wiseman was like, hey, like, if
Speaker 1: Shirley Clark can do this thing, I can do this thing.
Speaker 1: And I don't like law school. I don't like teaching law.
Speaker 1: One of the things he did, because he didn't love
Speaker 1: teaching law was take his class on a lot of
Speaker 1: field trips, I guess just to mixings up, and they
Speaker 1: used to go to Bridgewater, and after a few visits
Speaker 1: he was like, wait a minute, I think everything kind
Speaker 1: of came together. His love of filmmaking, his cinema veritae
Speaker 1: kind of becoming popular, and his interest in that, and
Speaker 1: then his interest disinterest in law and interest in Bridgewater.
Speaker 1: So he had this idea to make this film there.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, as we'll see later, this is kind of crucial.
Speaker 2: He got permission to show up. He's said many times
Speaker 2: in later interviews, Bridgewater is no the kind of place
Speaker 2: you just kind of parachute in at night, do all
Speaker 2: your filming and then creep away at dawn with all
Speaker 2: of your footage. Like he had to get extensive permission from.
Speaker 3: Sounds like he's done that before though, which is kind
Speaker 3: of cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've done that before too, in grocery stores.
Speaker 3: Remember, Oh, that's right.
Speaker 2: So he got permission from the Lieutenant Governor, he got
Speaker 2: permission from the Department of Corrections head, he got permission
Speaker 2: of the superintendent of Bridgewater. They all knew he was there,
Speaker 2: and they would have figured out eventually anyway, because he
Speaker 2: spent twenty nine days filming in Bridgewater, and he would
Speaker 2: just do his his cinema veritas style where he would
Speaker 2: just walk around and just film stuff, film whatever. He could,
Speaker 2: just film film film. And I saw something where he
Speaker 2: said that his for his documentaries, he films anything from
Speaker 2: like seventy five hours in a minimum chuck Wow, to
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty hours, and then he goes through
Speaker 2: it all and edits all the stuff he likes, and
Speaker 2: then after like month eight of editing, he'll start piecing
Speaker 2: it together into like an arc A story arc.
Speaker 1: Wow, which boiled down in this case to eighty three
Speaker 1: minutes of a movie. Yeah, and the name Tittcut Follies
Speaker 1: comes from I think Titticut was a Native American name.
Speaker 3: I would guess somewhere in the region. I didn't really pick.
Speaker 2: For the Bridgewater area. That's what they called it, Okay.
Speaker 1: And the follies were that, you know, the film opens
Speaker 1: up with a musical performance by the I guess there
Speaker 1: were inmates with the song struck Up the band where
Speaker 1: all they're all dressed the same and you can see
Speaker 1: you can see quite a few clips on YouTube. But
Speaker 1: as Livia points out, like Weiseman has always been really
Speaker 1: guarded with how his films are exhibited, and so I
Speaker 1: don't think you can just like go YouTube this thing
Speaker 1: up and watch the whole thing still, even.
Speaker 2: I did last night.
Speaker 3: Oh on YouTube?
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, on YouTube. No, it was on vimeo.
Speaker 1: Oh interesting, all right, I wonder if that's like some
Speaker 1: sort of pirated upload.
Speaker 2: It was. It's it's a it was a VHS copied
Speaker 2: put online. So I'm thinking, yeah, it was pirated.
Speaker 3: Did you watch it all?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I did. I watched I'd never seen it before.
Speaker 2: I was familiar with it the title. I had not
Speaker 2: a lot of idea of what it was about, but yeah,
Speaker 2: it was. But do you think certainly striking? It was
Speaker 2: really something like I had ups and downs and highs
Speaker 2: and lows, and I think it was everything Wiseman wanted
Speaker 2: me to feel about it. It was pretty great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it is great. It's even the eighty
Speaker 1: three minutes. It's tough to sit through the whole thing
Speaker 1: because I think by its nature, cinema verite can be taxing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: even while engrossing, it can be pretty taxing.
Speaker 3: That's the best way to put it.
Speaker 1: But it's also obviously in this case, it's not about
Speaker 1: high school football.
Speaker 3: Championship.
Speaker 1: It's it's literally watching these people. I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: we should just talk about some of the scenes.
Speaker 2: Maybe, Yeah, And a lot of the people are going
Speaker 2: to go back and be like justa this is great
Speaker 2: or bear with us everybody.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, hey, you're a cinophile, that's right, punch
Speaker 3: me in the face.
Speaker 2: But no, the stomach, okay, says way too hostile stomachs. Yeah,
Speaker 2: a little bit of friendliness left in it.
Speaker 3: You know, Yeah, like Houdini style, that'll do well.
Speaker 1: One of the scenes that Livia picked out that certainly
Speaker 1: stands out in my mind too, and I think you
Speaker 1: can actually find parts of this one on YouTube is
Speaker 1: a guard. I guess was he dry shaving It looked
Speaker 1: like dry shaving or was it a wet shave.
Speaker 2: No, they put like shaving cream on him and everything.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, And everybody seems to characterize it as like
Speaker 2: really rough, like forceful, kind of almost like he's being
Speaker 2: tortured with the shave.
Speaker 3: It was fast, It was fast, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I didn't. It didn't look like it hurt the patient,
Speaker 2: so it didn't. And it didn't seem like the guy
Speaker 2: was trying to torture him. It just seemed like he
Speaker 2: was being very quick and efficient, and he does like
Speaker 2: cut him at the edge of one of his mouth,
Speaker 2: one of the edges of a corner of his mouth. Sorry, Right,
Speaker 2: so he's bleeding a little bit, but it doesn't seem
Speaker 2: like he doesn't seem in distressed at all while he's
Speaker 2: shaving him at the very least, he's not in distress because.
Speaker 3: Of the shaving, right, But then what happened.
Speaker 2: Well, there are these at least two guards, right, and
Speaker 2: this ismate. By the way, his name Jim. He's probably
Speaker 2: the most famous character in the in the movie. Yeah,
Speaker 2: or patient, I should say, he's not a character he has.
Speaker 2: It's easy to get a rise out of Jim, as
Speaker 2: hard as Jim tries to not let you get a
Speaker 2: rise out of him. If you press his buttons, he's
Speaker 2: gonna like, yeah, he's gonna get mad. He's going to
Speaker 2: try to contain himself. And there are a couple of
Speaker 2: guards that were guarding Jim while he was being washed
Speaker 2: and shaved and all that stuff, who just spent the
Speaker 2: entire scene trying to get a rise out of him
Speaker 2: by saying like, why is your room so dirty, Jim?
Speaker 2: Or is your room going to be clean tomorrow. Jim,
Speaker 2: you got to keep your room clean. Jim just ceaselessly
Speaker 2: and incessantly, and we see eventually when they take him
Speaker 2: back to his room, it's totally empty. There's a window,
Speaker 2: there's nothing in the room, and in fact, Jim is
Speaker 2: kept naked in his room, so there's no way for
Speaker 2: Jim for Jim's room to be dirty, and also for
Speaker 2: no way for Jim to keep his room clean. These guards,
Speaker 2: you realize, were just trying to get a rise out
Speaker 2: of Jim, and they do over and over again, and
Speaker 2: it's really hard and sad to watch Jim like just
Speaker 2: get up saying he's trying so hard to just not
Speaker 2: let these guys get to him because he knows what
Speaker 2: they're doing. He's fully aware of what they're doing, and
Speaker 2: he just can't help himself. Probably like five different times
Speaker 2: he reacts and then tries to regain his composure again.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's almost as that they're trying to drive him mad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're also doing I saw somebody describe it
Speaker 2: as they're they're goading him with the kind of like
Speaker 2: bored desensitization or desensitivity of somebody who does this, like
Speaker 2: every day and know exactly what he's gonna do, and
Speaker 2: there's no fun in it anymore. But they just kind
Speaker 2: of do it to amuse themselves as much as they
Speaker 2: can from it, which is even worse, you know, because
Speaker 2: they're torturing this poor guy mentally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we should point out too that, you know,
Speaker 1: Weisman showed scenes like this, but it wasn't It wasn't
Speaker 1: like a one indictment on the people who work there,
Speaker 1: because he did also show some parts where there was
Speaker 1: some caretaken. I mean, what was your like, I haven't
Speaker 1: seen the whole thing since college, so what was your
Speaker 1: net net on that?
Speaker 2: So? I think the thing that I got from it
Speaker 2: was that Wiseman treats everybody as human and equal in
Speaker 2: that he's not expressing like empathy necessarily. He's not trying
Speaker 2: to even get you to to empathize or sympathize. He's
Speaker 2: not trying to get you to form an opinion. He's
Speaker 2: just showing you what he found right. And if he
Speaker 2: is trying to get you to form an opinion, it's
Speaker 2: so abuse that it's tough to put your finger on.
Speaker 2: In retrospect, maybe maybe you respond exactly the way he
Speaker 2: wanted you to, but he's not very rarely does he
Speaker 2: like hammer you with it. So I feel like he
Speaker 2: just treats everybody the same. Like there's a guy, there's
Speaker 2: a patient who talks about all of the children he's raped,
Speaker 2: and he knows that it's bad. He knows that it's
Speaker 2: like that, like what he's doing is wrong and he
Speaker 2: can't help himself. But there's like Wiseman makes no effort
Speaker 2: to make this man seem despicable or evil or anything
Speaker 2: like that. He might as well be talking about like
Speaker 2: a car he's thinking about buying. Yeah, for how Wiseman
Speaker 2: portrays it, And so like, if he's treating that guy equal,
Speaker 2: he's definitely treating like the guards and the clinical staff
Speaker 2: and everybody equally. But I think more than that, he
Speaker 2: just turns the camera on and lets them behave as
Speaker 2: they're going to behave. He lets them present themselves to you,
Speaker 2: rather than him trying to manipulate it so that you
Speaker 2: see what Wiseman wants you to see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that's the purest form of cinema veritae,
Speaker 1: which you know, it's interesting how conditioned we are to
Speaker 1: even hearing an ominous musical score during a scene where
Speaker 1: a guy might talk about crimes like that, and when
Speaker 1: all that's stripped away like it's it can be like
Speaker 1: more unsettling, I think than hearing that creepy score totally.
Speaker 1: It reminds me then this is certainly not the same thing.
Speaker 1: But we went to a Cleveland Indians baseball game one
Speaker 1: time when Emily's family still lived in Ohio, and it
Speaker 1: was this throwback game where they didn't do any modern
Speaker 1: things at all, and you don't really think about that.
Speaker 3: You're like, when was a baseball game? What do they do? Like?
Speaker 1: All they had was the organ player and the announcer going,
Speaker 1: you know now after bad.
Speaker 3: Number five so and toe so and to awesome, yeah done.
Speaker 1: You didn't play a song when they came up that
Speaker 1: the batter picked out. They didn't have the home depot
Speaker 1: hammer and nail and shovel chase each other around the
Speaker 1: field between innings and a race. They didn't you know,
Speaker 1: there's you don't realize when you go to a pro
Speaker 1: sports game of all the extra boy, especially an NBA game, sure,
Speaker 1: all the extra stuff that's there until it's gone. And
Speaker 1: it was really really weird. I liked it. Her family
Speaker 1: was like, I'm bored, and I was like, I think.
Speaker 3: This is kind of cool the shortag jacks at least.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean they sold the stuff and it
Speaker 1: wasn't throwback prices, of course, but it was. It's weird
Speaker 1: when you're so conditioned though, kind of like with film,
Speaker 1: just to background noise and just sort of the things
Speaker 1: that we hear in movies, lighting or a camera move
Speaker 1: or you know, cinema verite is all about sort of
Speaker 1: just locking that camera down or handholding it. Sometimes when
Speaker 1: all that artifice is gone, it can have a reverse
Speaker 1: effect that all the artifice has, like you're using it for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think in addition to what is added
Speaker 2: to kind of manipulate you emotionally or unconsciously, there's also
Speaker 2: a lot that's removed, a lot of reality that's removed,
Speaker 2: like like the background noise. If they put background noise in,
Speaker 2: it's fully artists. It's not the actual background noise that
Speaker 2: was there when they were filming. Yeah, that's not what
Speaker 2: Wiseman does. This film is replete with disturbing background noise,
Speaker 2: like televisions that are on that you can't see other people,
Speaker 2: both conversations that you can't make out what they're saying
Speaker 2: the lighting he uses is only the lighting at Bridgewater.
Speaker 2: He doesn't use any of his own light. It's all
Speaker 2: whatever it's called available light. And Yeah, when you just
Speaker 2: kind of watch it, you're like, this is just like
Speaker 2: looking in on real life, which makes what you're seeing
Speaker 2: all the more disturbing because, in addition to almost being there,
Speaker 2: you almost feel guilty, especially if you have half a
Speaker 2: conscience of witnessing the stuff that you're seeing, because you're
Speaker 2: seeing some of these people like Jim when he's taken
Speaker 2: back to his cell after those guards got a rise
Speaker 2: out of him while he was being shaved. He's naked,
Speaker 2: fully naked, stomping around basically throwing a tantrum, trying. You
Speaker 2: can tell he's trying to calm himself down. This is
Speaker 2: how he's like getting out his anger, and Wiseman just
Speaker 2: sits there and films the whole thing, and you're forced
Speaker 2: to watch as the viewer. You're I saw somebody put it.
Speaker 2: It's basically like you're the one standing in the doorway.
Speaker 2: Even after the guards have left, you're still standing there
Speaker 2: watching this man in one of the probably one of
Speaker 2: the several worst points of his recent life. Just gawking
Speaker 2: at him basically, and it's it's that's the hard part
Speaker 2: of it for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Or you know, at the other end of the spectrum,
Speaker 1: there's a scene with a guy named Vladimir, and this
Speaker 1: guy is very lucid and he's speaking very clearly about
Speaker 1: you know, I think, my, my, I've deteriorated since I've
Speaker 1: been here. I think all this noise that you're hearing,
Speaker 1: all these TVs that are always turned on full blast,
Speaker 1: it's sort of driving me crazy. And I would like
Speaker 1: to go back to prison where I actually could work
Speaker 1: out in a gym and I could take classes. And
Speaker 1: this medication that they're giving me is making me worse,
Speaker 1: Like I feel that it's harming me. And when he's
Speaker 1: you know, when the guards take him out of the room,
Speaker 1: then there there's a scene of the the clinicians like
Speaker 1: discussing things, and it's sort of like, sounds like we
Speaker 1: need to up his medication right and his tranquilizers because
Speaker 1: he's paranoid. So when you see something like that, it's
Speaker 1: sort of the other end of the spectrum from Jim,
Speaker 1: equally disturbing, but part of the beauty of this and
Speaker 1: the rawness of this film is like these people are
Speaker 1: all in the here together.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's never lost on you.
Speaker 2: His is a particularly sad case. Yeah, because you can tell, like, no,
Speaker 2: he's with it. This guys, he knows what he's saying.
Speaker 2: He's not trying to manipulate. He's pleading his case in
Speaker 2: a logical way. He's trying so hard not to get
Speaker 2: worked up. How would you not get worked up when
Speaker 2: when you're pleading your case to be released from a
Speaker 2: mental institution from somebody who's just taking you, as you know, nuts,
Speaker 2: So why should you be listened to. There's even one
Speaker 2: of the medical staff at that meeting. After he leaves
Speaker 2: the room and they're discussing him, she says, what did
Speaker 2: she say? She's like, if you take his basic premise
Speaker 2: is true, then everything he says from that is totally logical.
Speaker 2: But of course his basic premise is total hogwash or whatever.
Speaker 2: She says something right, I'm paraphrasing, just so it's like
Speaker 2: that guy never had a chance. He just wasted his breath.
Speaker 2: He just like they they were never going to listen
Speaker 2: to him, And it's like red and yeah, yeah, well
Speaker 2: was he not supposed to be there? He was supposed
Speaker 2: to be there one.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but every time he came up for parole
Speaker 1: he would plead his case, they would deny it.
Speaker 3: And then finally in the end.
Speaker 1: He was like, you know, it doesn't matter what I
Speaker 1: say in here, You're not gonna let me out anyway.
Speaker 3: That's my Morgan Freeman.
Speaker 2: But that sounds a little more like boss Hog on Tranquilizers.
Speaker 2: What Yeah, that was boss Hog sedated.
Speaker 3: Oh Man's again. No, I can't maybe Jerry can edit that.
Speaker 1: I can't have a do my Morgan Freeman again, one
Speaker 1: of the great voices. But yeah, he basically says, you know, institutionalized,
Speaker 1: you're you're let me out no matter what I say.
Speaker 3: And of course that's when they let him out, which
Speaker 3: is it's.
Speaker 1: A dramatic film and with a great, wonderful, happy ending,
Speaker 1: not like titty cut volleys no.
Speaker 2: One. Other thing that I think we should point out
Speaker 2: too for people who haven't seen the movie, like we
Speaker 2: know Vladimir's name in Jim's name, just because it comes
Speaker 2: up like in discussion, like they're calling him Jim or
Speaker 2: somebody addresses Vladimir's Vladimir. There's no Chiron at the bottom
Speaker 2: of the screen says Vladimir. Yeah, Jim. There's no no
Speaker 2: one explaining how Jim got here or what Vladimir did.
Speaker 2: There's no nothing, Nothing is explained. It's just here's a scene,
Speaker 2: here's another scene. Here's another scene, here's another scene. Nothing
Speaker 2: necessarily leads into anything else. There's one part that scene
Speaker 2: that Wiseman says he regrets because it was so he
Speaker 2: calls it ham fisted. Where there's it's really hard to watch.
Speaker 2: It is the main doctor, the main clinician who's a
Speaker 2: recurring character whose name we have no idea who it is,
Speaker 2: at least if you just watch the movie. He force
Speaker 2: feeds a patient who stopped eating and through with a
Speaker 2: naso gastric tube stuffed down his nose all the way
Speaker 2: into his stomach. And this guy is just stoically taking
Speaker 2: this like he's decided he is not going to eat.
Speaker 2: They even give him a choice, so like you can
Speaker 2: drink the super you're gonna we're gonna force feed you.
Speaker 2: And he's like, you're gonna have to force feedb I
Speaker 2: don't even think he says anything. Yeah, So there's a
Speaker 2: there's a force feeding scene. You watch an emaciated man
Speaker 2: who's starving himself. Force fed, and he intercut that part
Speaker 2: with scenes from the man's preparation for burial right to
Speaker 2: kind of show like, you know, he didn't make it,
Speaker 2: he was successful in ending his own life through starvation.
Speaker 2: And then also I think what Wiseman was trying to
Speaker 2: get across was that he was, you know, he's really
Speaker 2: being cared for. He's given like a decent burial and
Speaker 2: like I think eight that he has eight pallbearers from
Speaker 2: the institution and he's like treated very well compared especially
Speaker 2: to this this force feeding through a tube down his nose,
Speaker 2: and Wiseman thought that was a little ham fisted. That is,
Speaker 2: that is the most cinematic part of the entire movie.
Speaker 2: Nothing else is anywhere remotely like that. It's all just seen, seen,
Speaker 2: scene seen, and like no explanation of who these people are,
Speaker 2: what they are trying to say.
Speaker 1: All right, should we take a break, Yeah, all right,
Speaker 1: we'll take our second break and be back right after this.
Speaker 1: So before we talk about the sort of court cases
Speaker 1: and whether or not this film could be banned or exhibited.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you talk about like it's just seen, seen,
Speaker 1: but on the flip side of that, it is like
Speaker 1: a such a carefully curated edit from all those hundreds
Speaker 1: of hours of footage down to eighty three minutes. And
Speaker 1: that's one of the things that Weisman sort of talked
Speaker 1: about was he didn't apparently he didn't. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he came around, but he didn't even like the
Speaker 1: term cinema verite because he felt it sounded too much
Speaker 1: like you were just shooting stuff and putting it in
Speaker 1: front of people. And he said, I am manipulating people,
Speaker 1: but it's through the edit. So while you may not
Speaker 1: think that, I mean, I guess he was a master
Speaker 1: at it because you probably shouldn't feel manipulated. But he's
Speaker 1: still putting together that careful edit.
Speaker 2: You know, it's interesting he is a master edit and
Speaker 2: it's pretty remarkable. This was his first film and he
Speaker 2: was that masterful at it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I said that it was crucial that he had
Speaker 2: gotten permission to film, not only from the Lieutenant Governor
Speaker 2: and the Superintendent of Bridgewater, but also from everyone he shot.
Speaker 2: He got either written permission from them or verbal permission
Speaker 2: audio visual I guess on camera them giving him permission
Speaker 2: to use them in his film. So he was covered
Speaker 2: up in permission and no forget he was a law
Speaker 2: professor too, and when the movie first came out, when
Speaker 2: he finished, he showed it to the superintendent of Bridgewater
Speaker 2: and to the lieutenant governor. They both apparently liked it,
Speaker 2: according to Wiseman, But it wasn't until the movie came
Speaker 2: out into wider release at the very beginning I think
Speaker 2: New York Film Festival or something like that, and people
Speaker 2: started responding by saying, like, this is barbaric, this treatment
Speaker 2: at Bridgewater, what's wrong with the state of Massachusetts that
Speaker 2: they suddenly turned on the film and Wiseman had on
Speaker 2: his hands what would come to become a banned film.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So one of the central players here is Elliott Richardson,
Speaker 1: who was that lieutenant governor you referenced at the time,
Speaker 1: had a loftier political aspiration, so when it came time
Speaker 1: to run for an office higher than that, tried to
Speaker 1: suppress this film, thinking it would count against him, and
Speaker 1: it became sort of like Olivia calls it a political tool,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what it became. Richardson would end up accusing
Speaker 1: Weisman of double crossing the state, and it all sort
Speaker 1: of hinged on the idea not like, oh, you showed
Speaker 1: these awful things, but it hinged on the idea of
Speaker 1: permissions in privacy was sort of the legal framework of it,
Speaker 1: because the argument was, sure, you might have gotten the
Speaker 1: permission from these men, but they are in no state
Speaker 1: to give real permission.
Speaker 3: And so there were a series of court.
Speaker 1: Cases over the years that sort of debated this, like
Speaker 1: for many many years. In sixty eight, it was a judge,
Speaker 1: spirit court judge named Harry Callous who found that it
Speaker 1: breached privacy. And uh, this was interesting though, because like
Speaker 1: I get that as a legal basis for argument, but
Speaker 1: this judge said he kind of attacked the filmmaking process right,
Speaker 1: and said it's just a hodgepodge of sequences with no
Speaker 1: narrative and said each viewers left to his own devices
Speaker 1: as to what's being portrayed and in what context. And
Speaker 1: in the meantime, Weisman's over there going to a duh,
Speaker 1: Like that's what cinema verite is. But I thought that
Speaker 1: was like, like this judge just said you should destroy
Speaker 1: that should like ordered it to be destroyed.
Speaker 2: Yeah. He also called it a nightmare of ghoulish obscenities
Speaker 2: and said the negative has to be burnt.
Speaker 3: Very judge, judge yeah, And of.
Speaker 2: Course Wiseman was like, well, I'm not burning my negative.
Speaker 2: I'm going to fight this and appeal it.
Speaker 3: Oh sure.
Speaker 2: That case, by the way, was the first one in
Speaker 2: Massachusetts history where court affirmed that a right to privacy exists. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it had never been affirmed in a court case, and
Speaker 2: it was established in that case. So it was it was.
Speaker 2: It was not cut and dry though, because Weisman has
Speaker 2: First Amendment right to freedom of expression. So it became
Speaker 2: freedom of expression versus freedom of privacy or right to privacy,
Speaker 2: I should say, and it the I think the ACLU
Speaker 2: got involved and they formed they submitted an amicus brief
Speaker 2: that basically said, we think that this film has value,
Speaker 2: but to a very limited number of people, specifically lawyers, judges,
Speaker 2: law students, medical students, psychiatrists, people in those fields should
Speaker 2: be able to see this, and that is about it.
Speaker 2: And so that kind of became the ruling shortly after
Speaker 2: that initial you need to burn the negatives on appeal,
Speaker 2: That's what they came up with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And so for a number of years after that,
Speaker 1: for those reasons, it was shown in like film class,
Speaker 1: it was shown in medical schools, it.
Speaker 3: Was shown in a library.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was shown in libraries that was a great
Speaker 1: place to see something like this, or in different institutions
Speaker 1: would show this and say this is what not to do,
Speaker 1: like you can't do stuff like this. Yeah, there was
Speaker 1: a believe and this was sort of through the seventies
Speaker 1: and then in the eighties some attorneys got involved that
Speaker 1: said there were some suicides at Bridgewater in the mid
Speaker 1: to late eighties.
Speaker 3: There were some.
Speaker 1: Class action lawsuits that followed by patients where the attorneys
Speaker 1: said they could draw a direct line basically between a
Speaker 1: patient dying by suicide and the fact that this film
Speaker 1: wasn't shown, like it should be allowed to be shown
Speaker 1: for these reasons.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like had it been shown, there would have been
Speaker 2: a public outcry for more refrains and that wouldn't have
Speaker 2: led you know, those reform might have prevented those suicides
Speaker 2: at Bridgewater. And so Wiseman said that he never gave
Speaker 2: up on the film being released to a wider audience,
Speaker 2: and he saw that that was a good time to
Speaker 2: bring this up again, and it actually worked out. He
Speaker 2: got a judged to basically say like, Okay, this is
Speaker 2: a yes, you should be able to show this, but
Speaker 2: we need to blur the faces of the men out,
Speaker 2: and Wiseman said, that's impossible. This is film, it's not video.
Speaker 3: And then also work with me here man, right, he.
Speaker 2: Said, Also, it'll artistically ruin my film. You remember when
Speaker 2: we did that one gorilla filming in the supermarket. We
Speaker 2: ended up having to go back and blur every single
Speaker 2: thing in the supermarket out except for us. I kind
Speaker 2: of screwed it up a little bit. I could see
Speaker 2: where he's coming from, right, And so he appealed again,
Speaker 2: and finally they said, you know what, not a single
Speaker 2: inmate at Bridgewater, and none of their families has ever
Speaker 2: filed a formal objection to this film being shown, So
Speaker 2: how about this just show it. It's unbanned officially by
Speaker 2: the early nineties.
Speaker 1: Right, that was a ninety one with Judge Andrew gil
Speaker 1: Meyer of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. And then after
Speaker 1: that it was still because Weisman is, like I said earlier,
Speaker 1: very picky about how his films are exhibited, and so
Speaker 1: it wasn't like it was just everywhere. I think PBS
Speaker 1: aired it in ninety three in full. You could always
Speaker 1: buy the DVD from him from his website or if
Speaker 1: there was a film festival or a film class, Like
Speaker 1: I said, when I saw it was in college film
Speaker 1: class from a VHS tape that the professor owned, probably
Speaker 1: bought it from Weisman, and that's sort of how it
Speaker 1: lived its life. I mean, it's interesting that this still
Speaker 1: is a relevant topic and irrelevant film and you know,
Speaker 1: is being talked about today, like in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: I think in twenty seventeen he even tried to or
Speaker 1: I think he successfully finally got it on his streaming
Speaker 1: service called Canopy with a K, which is also kind
Speaker 1: of through the library, which is awesome.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can watch it for free if you sign
Speaker 2: up for a Canopy account with your library card number. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you can go watch I think all of Wiseman's films
Speaker 2: all forty eight, which is pretty great. But there seems
Speaker 2: to have been some direct effects of the film on Bridgewater,
Speaker 2: but still from what it sounds like, there's still a
Speaker 2: long way to go with Bridgewater too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they made a lot of strides. And
Speaker 1: then they found even as recently as this year that
Speaker 1: they were using what they call chemical restraints, basically just
Speaker 1: doping people up more than they said they were doing.
Speaker 1: So this is ongoing there. And then Wispan, like you said,
Speaker 1: made forty eight films and they had names like hospital
Speaker 1: or high School. And it's just sort of that very
Speaker 1: bare bone cinema verite look at a single topic that's
Speaker 1: sort of been his.
Speaker 3: Bread and butter. I think it's a really cool thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is really cool. He's just fascinated with institutions,
Speaker 2: although he even says he has no idea how they work.
Speaker 2: And I think he's even said he's not quite sure
Speaker 2: he understands his film himself. Yeah, which is pretty awesome
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and zup. Poor Films is named.
Speaker 1: After his wife, who passed away a couple of years
Speaker 1: ago at the age of ninety.
Speaker 3: And he's, like you said, still going strong.
Speaker 2: Yeah. What's his latest one City Hall?
Speaker 3: Yeah about Boston City Hall.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it came out in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: Pretty cool.
Speaker 2: Well, if you want to know more about Titty Cut Follies,
Speaker 2: you should probably go watch it, but be warned it
Speaker 2: is really rough, even though it is great in the
Speaker 2: term of a cinema file would use it. How about
Speaker 2: that a cinophile I always had an extra syllable, So
Speaker 2: that of course means it's time for listener.
Speaker 1: Now I'm going to call this follow up on the
Speaker 1: effect of altruism. One of our favorite things is when
Speaker 1: we talk about a topic and someone from that topic.
Speaker 3: Gets in touch and as a listener. Yeah for real,
Speaker 3: and that's.
Speaker 1: What happened in this case with Grace Adams. Guys, we
Speaker 1: are so excited that you covered effective altruism and you
Speaker 1: did so wonderfully, and Grace is with giving what we
Speaker 1: can giving what we can. Would love to give your
Speaker 1: listeners a free book on effective altruism if you include
Speaker 1: this link in the show notes, which we don't have
Speaker 1: but we'll just say it here. People can opt to
Speaker 1: have a free book sent to them, including the precipice
Speaker 1: by Toby Ord anywhere in the world. We love sending
Speaker 1: out books and things is a great way for people
Speaker 1: to engage more with the ideas. Wishing you all the
Speaker 1: best from a big personal fan, Grace Adams, And oh
Speaker 1: I should have made this into a bit lee Should
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 3: That real quick?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: All right, so you just talk to people while I
Speaker 3: do that.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, well, hey, everybody, I.
Speaker 3: Actually we could edit this together.
Speaker 2: But Toby Ord wrote in and said the same thing too.
Speaker 2: But he also sent us well wishes and said we
Speaker 2: did a good job on the Effective Altruism episode, which
Speaker 2: I thought was pretty good because I like to think
Speaker 2: we're fairly fair handed with it. We weren't too over
Speaker 2: the top a subjective, don't you think?
Speaker 1: I think so, although we did get one email from
Speaker 1: someone that's like kind of acted like we didn't point
Speaker 1: out any of the downsides, which she disagree with.
Speaker 2: I disagree with that. But anyway, how's that Bitley coming, Chuck?
Speaker 3: Okay, my friend, I am done. I have the bit Lee.
Speaker 1: If you go to bit bit dot l y slash
Speaker 1: s y s k give you can get your free book.
Speaker 2: Yes, pretty great free books on effective altruism and free
Speaker 2: books buy Toby ord on Existential Risks, which I mean,
Speaker 2: come on. If you want to get in touch with us,
Speaker 2: like Grace from GiveWell did, we would love to hear
Speaker 2: from you. You can send us an email whether you
Speaker 2: want to give away free books not. It's okay, you
Speaker 2: don't have to send it off to Stuff Podcasts at
Speaker 2: iHeartRadio dot.
Speaker 3: Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 3: more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 3: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.