Convenings

Past Learning Exchange Reports:
Los Angeles, November 15–17, 2002

Case Sessions: Massachusetts Foundation for Humanities, Imagining Robert

Presenters: Larry Hott, Jay Neugeboren, Hayley Wood

Viewing of the film.

Haley Wood (HW): Discussion of process. Talked about the groups they have been able to reach and those they haven’t. For example, one early challenge was trying to plan a screening at a police academy. It seemed as though it would be valuable for recruits because police are often at the front lines of dealing with the mentally ill.  It would allow them to understand the depths of the individuals they are dealing with, instead of just seeing “a problem.”  We were not able to get the police academy to show the film.  Other challenges have included learning different ways of talking to and engaging different groups. One screening was at a state house (with legislators, representatives, chair of the mental health caucus, etc.). A question Larry Hott posed after the film to that group was: How much of this is just money—the cost required to support departments of mental health?  If we had all the money in the world, what problems would we still have? One response he received: You’d still lack the people and caring. BUT, with money we could adequately pay staff. Another question posed addressed the issue of stigma.  People responded: people have fear of those with mental illness, they’re afraid to have them around their children. There’s a lack of understanding of those who are different. Another response addressed the issue of isolation and a mentally ill individual’s relationship to the community. It became clear that this is also class issue. The organization’s most successful program was at a small gallery studio that is for people with mental illnesses; it is a place for them to make and show their work. They created an exhibit that included Imagining Robert imagery and objects, and also self portraits of mentally ill artists from the community. The themes of isolation and aloneness, of the need for a support system, came out strongly from one dialogue. This dialogue also raised the question of the relationship between the mentally ill and their care providers, and mental health professionals. How much voice is given to the mentally ill and how often are they spoken for? 

Larry Hott (LH): Our real dialogue was with people they brought to the table. All the prep work, getting people to the table, was the hard part. Once the people were there, the dialogue flowed. People came to the table who had never spoken to each other before. They were finally able to confront each other. It resulted in some amazing dialogue.

JN: When I wrote the book, I had no thought about its potential effect on the world. When I started working with Larry, I discovered that when working on a documentary, you don’t write a script. The most important thing for me was broadening the reach and affecting change. Affecting policy. I didn’t intend to do that…I have found that film can reach an audience that books don’t always reach. The film also gives voice to Robert in a way that the book doesn’t...to see him is to begin to know him, which cannot happen as well by reading the book. One of the really interesting by-products is that many people are calling and writing and e-mailing to say that they have a sibling, mother, spouse, etc. with a similar story, and these people are asking, “can you help me?” They are beginning to network and find ways for real people to get real help.  In large part due to the film, Robert will publish a book. It will contain his diary, poems, and letters. The film has created a certain level of understanding and tolerance that I hadn’t foreseen when writing the book.

Questions and Reactions:

Sandy Agustin: I think it is very graceful and gracious that Larry has done this.  I feel, however, that Robert should be here in this room. (We are told that often he is present when the film is shown) I’m wondering how you can comment on the form and subject matter of mental health without getting so drawn into the humanness of the story? 

Q: I’m wondering about the sub-story of the relationship with the mother.  How often does this get talked about and focused on?  (LH tells him that they’ll get back to that)

Q: Jay’s absence seems very present in the film. We don’t get to know Jay as well as we’d like. This leads to a discussion of the issue of caregiver: what do we expect of him, and what are the limits of what should be expected?

MA: I like that the film is about Robert, and not the mental health system. As art and story, it has to leave a lot of questions unanswered and the room to tease them out. I like that it’s about life; it’s very rich and dignified.

JN: One of the things that has surprised me is Robert’s total lack of embarrassment about things in his life and his behavior that most people would be ashamed of. I was nervous about writing certain things, but Robert’s attitude was “why not?” The story, with beginning, middle and end, has given validity to Robert’s life and has been very therapeutic for Robert.  He loves being a movie star!  Being made into an object that is readily accepted by the public (a movie) perhaps removes shame from the situation.  

Regie Cabico (RC): There’s a sense of hope in the film. Jay, what is the catharsis like?  Now, where are you and how have things changed since the movie? 

JN: It just draws us closer, creates another thing for us to share and to have something to talk about and struggle with together. It allows us to talk together more freely. Since Larry’s involvement, Robert has been in an upward arc in his own life…not sure if there’s a connection.

Katrina Brown: I appreciated Robert being given the camera. I feel that the portrayal and treatment were very dignified.  I noticed my own bias about treating Robert fragilely and assumed that maybe he wouldn’t be able to handle the really heavy stuff…I appreciated that you allowed him to go there. I also appreciated the emphasis on time and the stress of the number of years that have gone by.

Mark Plesent: I was surprised by the hope present in the film. In my own experience with mental illness (my brother), I’ve never felt hope, and this made an impression. I’m wondering if this film has been used for other families dealing with mental illness. 

LH: Yes.  It has gone out to the world on its own and other organizations have used it with their own dialogue sessions. It has been very gratifying.

Jeffrey Herrmann: (Asks Larry) What didn’t make it into the film, what was left on the floor? Because documentary is not reality, but shaped reality. 

LH: There were originally some sequences of Jay working with graduate students. We tried to show Jay’s normal life, but we decided that this should be only about the two brothers. Also, our budget was so small that I, for the first time ever, shot my own film…I had never picked up a camera before. But we couldn’t afford a camera man.  As for manipulation: example, the photo studio scene: we planned these shots originally for publicity stills, but then worked the scenes into the film itself and something magical happened. Also, a lot of the narration was written to the picture after the scenes had been shot. We were looking for what was lacking. This was in response to a question, posed by Pat Romney: what can you add to the film that can elicit more dialogue? 

Steve Day (SD): Could you contrast the more successful dialogues with those that were less successful? 

LH: I wouldn’t say that any of the dialogues were unsuccessful, but the best ones brought different people working in mental health together. The least interesting was with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.  I think it was because everyone was coming from the same perspective and it wasn’t anything they didn’t already know. They had a great conversation, though, but it was more cathartic than anything else. 

BSB: It seems that the national partner for any issue often becomes too much of an advocate and creates a situation that is actually difficult for dialogue.