{"title":"观察的政治:纪录片与激进精神病学","authors":"Des O’Rawe","doi":"10.1080/20004214.2019.1568791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The post-war counter-culture encouraged alternative ways of articulating the language of documentary film, contributing to a wider critique of social institutions and the complicity of the mass media in constructing perceptions of authority. In relation to the politics of madness, this era also gave rise to a heightened awareness of psychiatric institutions as sites of symbolic power rather than therapeutic care, informing a growing scepticism towards both traditionally assumed causes and categories of mental illness as well as the everyday concept of rationality itself. This article offers a comparative analysis of different observational filmmaking styles in relation to their respective portrayals of various methods, personalities, and institutions associated with forms of radical psychiatry. It explores the impact and legacy of these cultural developments on films such as: Warrendale (Allan King, 1967); Asylum (Peter Robinson, 1972); San Clemente (Raymond Depardon and Sophie Ristelhueber, 1980); and Every Little Thing/La Moindre des choses (Nicolas Philibert, 1996). Despite their cultural and formal differences, these films are similarly involved in negotiating not only problematic distinctions between observation and intrusion, fiction and documentary, but also constructions of madness and sanity.","PeriodicalId":43229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20004214.2019.1568791","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The politics of observation: documentary film and radical psychiatry\",\"authors\":\"Des O’Rawe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20004214.2019.1568791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The post-war counter-culture encouraged alternative ways of articulating the language of documentary film, contributing to a wider critique of social institutions and the complicity of the mass media in constructing perceptions of authority. In relation to the politics of madness, this era also gave rise to a heightened awareness of psychiatric institutions as sites of symbolic power rather than therapeutic care, informing a growing scepticism towards both traditionally assumed causes and categories of mental illness as well as the everyday concept of rationality itself. This article offers a comparative analysis of different observational filmmaking styles in relation to their respective portrayals of various methods, personalities, and institutions associated with forms of radical psychiatry. It explores the impact and legacy of these cultural developments on films such as: Warrendale (Allan King, 1967); Asylum (Peter Robinson, 1972); San Clemente (Raymond Depardon and Sophie Ristelhueber, 1980); and Every Little Thing/La Moindre des choses (Nicolas Philibert, 1996). Despite their cultural and formal differences, these films are similarly involved in negotiating not only problematic distinctions between observation and intrusion, fiction and documentary, but also constructions of madness and sanity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20004214.2019.1568791\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2019.1568791\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2019.1568791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
战后的反主流文化鼓励了纪录片语言的其他表达方式,有助于对社会制度和大众媒体在构建权威观念方面的共谋进行更广泛的批评。关于疯狂的政治,这个时代也引起了人们对精神病院作为象征性权力场所的高度认识,而不是治疗性护理,对传统上假定的精神疾病的原因和类别以及理性本身的日常概念都提出了越来越多的怀疑。本文对不同的观察性电影制作风格进行了比较分析,分析了它们各自对与激进精神病学形式相关的各种方法、个性和制度的描述。它探讨了这些文化发展对电影的影响和遗产,如:沃伦代尔(艾伦·金,1967);收容所(彼得·罗宾逊,1972);圣克莱门特(Raymond Depardon and Sophie Ristelhueber, 1980);以及《每一件小事》/《梦中人》(Nicolas Philibert, 1996)。尽管这些电影在文化和形式上存在差异,但它们都同样涉及讨论,不仅是观察与侵入、虚构与纪录片之间存在问题的区别,还包括对疯狂与理智的建构。
The politics of observation: documentary film and radical psychiatry
ABSTRACT The post-war counter-culture encouraged alternative ways of articulating the language of documentary film, contributing to a wider critique of social institutions and the complicity of the mass media in constructing perceptions of authority. In relation to the politics of madness, this era also gave rise to a heightened awareness of psychiatric institutions as sites of symbolic power rather than therapeutic care, informing a growing scepticism towards both traditionally assumed causes and categories of mental illness as well as the everyday concept of rationality itself. This article offers a comparative analysis of different observational filmmaking styles in relation to their respective portrayals of various methods, personalities, and institutions associated with forms of radical psychiatry. It explores the impact and legacy of these cultural developments on films such as: Warrendale (Allan King, 1967); Asylum (Peter Robinson, 1972); San Clemente (Raymond Depardon and Sophie Ristelhueber, 1980); and Every Little Thing/La Moindre des choses (Nicolas Philibert, 1996). Despite their cultural and formal differences, these films are similarly involved in negotiating not only problematic distinctions between observation and intrusion, fiction and documentary, but also constructions of madness and sanity.