The Comfort Cinema of Frederick Wiseman

Mounting a comprehensive retrospective of the work of Frederick Wiseman—as New York’s Film at Lincoln Center is doing, starting tomorrow—is a daunting task. The documentary filmmaker, who celebrated his 95th birthday earlier this month, has been directing, producing, and editing features since 1967, sometimes as often as one every year. Lincoln Center will screen 34 of them, a back-breaking program by any measure, but especially for a director whose films’ excellence is often matched by their duration (recent efforts typically run over three hours). 

Yet this retrospective, wittily dubbed “Frederick Wiseman: An American Institution,” could not be more essential — or more timely. The uninitiated viewer could look upon the Wiseman filmography as cultural broccoli; who wants to spend their time watching endurance-testing documentaries? But I would posit that, if anything, Wiseman’s films can function as a temporary balm to the all-encompassing malaise of life in America, circa 2025. 

It’s tempting to say that he came onto the scene fully formed, and indeed, his sensational 1967 directorial debut, Titicut Follies, is already deploying the cornerstones of his signature style. A snapshot of the often harrowing conditions at the Bridgewater State Hospital for the Criminally Insane in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, the picture eschews many of the common conventions of non-fiction filmmaking, then and now: there is no voice-over narration, no archival footage, and no talking heads explaining what we’re seeing. It’s pure observation, pure “direct cinema”; Wiseman, who began as a lawyer, presents his footage less as argument than evidence.

Titicut Follies (which takes its title from the staff talent show, whose mirthless excerpts bookend the picture) also features lengthy interactions and conversations between stubborn parties (in this case, patients and doctors, or patients and other patients), which Wiseman allows to play out past the point of easy conflict or insight. It also features long and hard-to-watch scenes of patients in crises, moving from reportage into the realm of outright discomfort. Those sequences would come back to haunt Wiseman, and his film; the portrait it presented was so distressing that the state of Massachusetts managed to successfully suppress the picture for more than two decades, thanks to the complicity of local courts and a weak-sauce accusation that Wiseman had violated the privacy of the hospital’s patients.

It’s an especially ridiculous argument considering that, then and in the decades that followed, Wiseman would prove to be anything but an activist or rabble-rouser; he’s as much an anthropologist as a filmmaker, capturing (usually without explicit comment) the rituals and routines of daily contemporary life. The films that followed were similarly observational studies of government entities, private organizations, and public communities; he’s made films about schools, medical facilities, modeling agencies, art galleries, and Central Park. In each and every case, he takes the time to poke into every nook and cranny of the organization in question, with the same general approach of honest fascination and general artistry. Watch enough of his work, and you’ll find even the most standard devices have extra juice — there’s just something about how he frames and cuts (even mere establishing shots) that’s borderline lyrical.

But ultimately, what’s so fabulous about his work is its aversion to statements. He doesn’t have Something to Say about his subjects, at least not explicitly, so he’s not working towards some grand overall thesis—and as a result, you don’t feel the gears grinding, the way you do with so much (too much) less accomplished documentary cinema. Without a predetermined destination, we never know exactly where he might go, and nothing that he encounters along the way is obviously dispensable or irrelevant.

And often, the sidebars are what’s most entertaining anyway. A film like 1991’s Aspen fills its 146-minute running time with mini-personality profiles of the instructors, experts, leaders and participants of classes, workshops, meetings, Bible studies, book clubs, meditation groups, and seminars; your mileage may vary, but my favorite is the gregariously clueless instructor of the adult art class who off-handedly notes, of Picasso’s “Guernica,” “That’s a fun painting.” 

In that and all of his films, his most peculiar gift (his black magic, frankly) is his ability to make the dullest of events — an office birthday party, a routine medical procedure, a sales meeting, for god’s sake — riveting. By my reckoning, there are two factors at play here: from a formal perspective, we’re swept up by the skill of his immersion and selection. But more importantly, his films are fueled by his own curiosity, his fascination with how things work, and by his assumption that we share that curiosity. 

It’s also important to note that his aversion to grand statements, and his insistence on exploring his subjects to other ends, doesn’t mean his films aren’t saying anything. His themes just sneak up on you. For example, it’s only at the end of 1983’s The Store, which explores the goings-on and Neiman Marcus’s flagship store in Dallas, that we realize this is a most piercing portrait of the conspicuous consumption of the Reagan years; we’re nearly in the fourth hour of 2017’s Ex Libris: The New York Public Library when the full force of the library, of the variety of its services and locations and scholarship, reveals itself as one of the last vestiges of genuine community in this splintered city. 

What has shifted over the course of the filmography is less his approach or attitude than his presentation. The expansive running times didn’t come into play until the mid-1970s, and the three-plus hour pictures didn’t become the norm until later; his earlier films are shorter, breezier, more like slices of life. With less time to make his points, the early films are more direct, so in a film like 1968’s High School, the subtext of the early scenes, which can be read as a study of the practices and causes of conformity, becomes explicitly stated text in the later passages. 

The later films are able to take more time, and circle their targets rather than come at them directly. Wiseman is, first and foremost, a humanist filmmaker; he values the people who comprise these institutions, and the individual competence of people who are good at what they do. But, as the double-play of the Lincoln Center retrospective’s title indicates, he is a filmmaker who has dedicated himself to the study of American institutions, and that’s what makes his work such unlikely comfort food: at a moment when our institutions are crumbling around us, here are dispatches (or, perhaps, time capsules) to remind us that they matter, that there are real people who are employed, aided, and lifted up by such institutions, and that they are stronger than the whims of a tinpot despot. 

This has been Wiseman’s lifelong project: portraying the vastness and complexity of the American experiment. “You’re a part of a vast and marvelous community,” explains a pastor at the end  of Aspen — in a sermon laced with casual racism and condescension. It’s an appropriate closing note, highlighting a combination of optimism and hypocrisy that’s American as apple pie.

“Frederick Wiseman: An American Institution” runs at Film at Lincoln Center from January 31 through March 5.

Jason Bailey is a film critic and historian, and the author of five books. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Playlist, Vanity Fair, Vulture, Rolling Stone, Slate, and more. He is the co-host of the podcast "A Very Good Year."

Back to top