Jim's Dignity (or lack thereof) in "Titicut Follies"

Jim's Dignity (or lack thereof) in "Titicut Follies"

During both the film screening and the class discussion this week I found the topic of dignity very interesting because it clashes with the notion that the audience has a right to the information being presented. Does the film infringe on the patients' dignity or does its political motives justify its use? That is to say, should we believe the camera is violating each inmate's dignity or is it merely exposing the injustice to the institution?

I think that the argument hinges on the awareness of each inmate and the overall implications of the camera's presence. If the inmates are not aware of themselves, then the camera is simply documenting their treatment at Bridgewater.

The film also shows us various patients who are very aware of their treatment, such as the former school-teacher, Jim. This is shown at the end of the scene in which the guards shave Jim's face and offer him a drink. Jim replies, "On the house, is it?" The joke is telling as it indicates Jim is aware of his environment; he has an understanding of the institution and the conventions associated with the place and its workers. Jim prods at the "generosity" of the guards and implies that he pays for the water with his dignity, for the phrase references a world in which Jim could go about his own business — a world he is clearly not a part of.

In this week's reading, Grant discusses the proceeding scene involving Jim. In this scene, Jim is aware of the camera's gaze – the viewpoint is also our own gaze and the guard's gaze. This scene is perhaps the most important example of how the film is able to implicate the audience with the conditions at Bridgewater and thereby demand a change in the institution's management. Its reflexive effect is disturbing as Grant asserts:

"The film's implication of us is wholly appropriate: because Bridgewater is our institution, created by us and our tax dollars, the film [...] exposes more about us than it does about Bridgewater" (243)

Some critics of Titicut Follies rightfully believe that the film goes too far, disrespecting individuals that are unable to defend themselves. But as Grant points out, the film is much more reflexive upon further consideration. I believe the dignity of each inmate was no further damaged than it already was prior to the films production. Furthermore, I think if the film were not produced Bridgwater would continue to function ineffectively without the public's knowledge, and as such the ban of the film is a disservice to the patients of the institution. Although the camera's presence is violating the dignity of many patients, Wiseman's political motives are clear. He hopes to change the system of Massachusetts asylums for the better, by any means necessary.