 Welcome everyone to this film screening and discussion with Robert Lemelson. I'm so sorry that I won't be able to talk much because I just had my first vaccine yesterday, actually. I'm still feeling a bit weird today, so I'm really sorry for this, but this is Rob's film and he will be able to do most of the talking and he'll be really good at it, so don't worry. And now I'm just going to read you a bit of Rob's biography, just a short biography of his. So Dr Rob Lemelson received his MA in Anthropology from the University of Chicago with additional training in clinical psychology and his PhD in Anthropology from UCLA. His area of interest is Southeast Asian Studies, Psychological and Visual Anthropology and Transcultural Psychiatry. Dr Lemelson is professor of Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology. He is also lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Silicon, California. A former Fulbright scholar has been conducting psychological and visual anthropological research in Indonesia on the islands of Bali and Jaffa yearly for the past 25 years. His work has appeared in Sgt. S. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry. It is Medical Anthropology Quarterly, American Anthropologists and Transcultural Psychiatry. He's also the co-editor of three volumes with Cambridge University Press, Understanding Trauma, Integrating Biological Clinical and Cultural Perspectives, Revisioning Psychiatric, Cultural Phenomenology, Critical Neuroscience and Global Mental Health and Culture, Mind, Brain Emerging Concepts, Models, Applicants. Dr Lemelson co-authored with Dr N. Takka and the book is entitled Afflictions, Steps Toward Visual Psychological Anthropology in 2017. His forthcoming title, Widening the Frame, Visual Psychological Anthropology, Perspectives on Trauma, Gender-Based Violence and Stigma, will be published in 2021, sometime this year with Paul Grave and in 2007 he founded Elemental Productions, an ethnographic documentary film production company. He has produced and directed over a dozen award-winning ethnographic films on subjects ranging from genocide, sex trade, mental illness, kinship, ritual, neurodiversity, thrones and possession and related topics. So it's quite a lot what he's done. And these awards included 2017 Creative Scholarship Award from the Society for the Study of Psychiatry and Culture for a Significant Creative Contribution to the Field of Cultural Psychiatry and in 2020 he received the New Directions Award from the General Anthropology Division of the American Anthropological Association. So thank you so much, Rob, for being with us today. And that will be really a great discussion, I believe. So. Okay, thanks again. That's a nice introduction. Thank you. I hope you feel better. I'm luckily had both of my vaccines. So the genesis of this project stems from research I did in the mid-90s in Bali and Java. Well, initially just just involved for my dissertation work and then expanded soon afterwards to Java. And I was looking at the question of the relationship of psychotic illness to culture. And the genesis of this project was the WHO had done a series of studies in the 1970s and 80s, first the international pilot study on schizophrenia, the IPSS, and then the determinants of outcome of severe mental disorders, the DOSMED study in the 80s. And these were and probably still are the largest transcultural epidemiological psychiatric studies ever. And the methodology for the study is they contacted, well, take a step back. They wanted to look at several questions. One is something like schizophrenia, some of that maps on to the construction of schizophrenia or psychotic illness universal. Is it a human universal? Does it appear? If you look for it, do you find it? And the second was, where do people do better and more silently, what factors lead to a differential, a better or worse outcome? And to look at these questions, they contacted psychiatrists around the world in diverse places such as Colombia, India, Ghana, actually a small study in Indonesia that I'll talk about in a second, America, Western Europe, Great Britain, Japan. And they got all first contact with these psychiatrists, most of whom worked in hospital settings. They had all first contact patients. So any patient who had a psychotic break, their first psychotic break, entered into the studies. And they found the two findings. The first one, the question of universality. The finding was somewhat surprising to anthropologists in that everywhere they looked, they found something that mapped on to the ICD, the international classification of disease definition of psychotic illness. It makes me think I had a colleague, Rob Barrett in Australia, who's a psychiatrist and anthropologist. And he wasn't actually part of the WHO studies, but he did do a really important study on schizophrenia among the Ebon dyac. Now, these are people living at the time in the early 80s, the 1500 miles up river in Borneo, no electricity, no radio, relatively limited at that time contact with the outside world. And he was able to, in his field work, he was able to find 50 cases that amount in this quite large area, but 50 cases that were classically obviously schizophrenia, something that Neil Craplin, who did the founder of that nocological modern kind of nocological system of psychiatric illness, would recognize over 100 years ago. These are people with what under Western psychiatry would consider to have delusions of hallucinations. So the universal question was somewhat settled. And that's held up to this day, more or less, even with diverse and changing definitions of schizophrenia. The second finding, which was quite surprising to the psychiatrist, not as surprising to the anthropologist, was that people with psychotic illness seem to do better in the developing world. And this has become to be known as the outcome paradox. How could it be that people return home, return to work, have families, have children, have fewer hospitalizations, and have lower rates of symptoms in aggregate? How could it be that people in, you know, the lesser developed countries are developing the developing world global south do better in places where a very limited slice of public health monies is devoted to psychiatry. And whereas where I live in Los Angeles, one of the wealthiest cities in the world, I can, you know, at my office at UCLA, if I could go there, I walk out into Westwood or to Santa Monica. And there's literally thousands of homeless mentally ill on the street here. And so that was a real paradox. And to this day, hasn't been entirely solved. But one of the reasons I got involved is I picked this as a topic that I had previously worked in clinical psychiatry and in psychology and in clinics and hospitals and schools in the kind of a previous career incarnation. So I was quite familiar with this with this community, at least in the United States. And the WHO pointed out that using their methodology, which was which were rather limited clinical interviews and a couple instruments, they couldn't really answer. It was not a sufficient technology methodology to answer the question of differential outcome. And they said, we really, to their credit, some of the lead researchers said, we need ethnography, we need people on the ground doing textured work in in this area. So I contacted a psychiatrist who had been part of a pilot study on acute psychosis in Bali, turned out she had she had done had a sample from the mid 80s of 115 people have had their first psychotic illness, and she had done quite good work on it. So I joined her, we collaborated, and we're able to to re contact, re diagnosed and interview and then conduct ethnographic research. And in particular, I did a kind of nested Russian doll nesting where we did a large community study and then I'm kind of mid level participant observation and then at the core was person centered asthmagraphic interviews. And for those of you who are unfamiliar with person centered ethnography, it is methodology pioneered by psychiatrist Bob Levy and my mentor Doug Holland at UCLA, and it involves extensive long term over the course of months or even years, if you have that amount of time, monthly open ended interviews with your subjects that are subject led or are semi structured at best, and are quite wide ranging. And so in this nested methodology, that was kind of in some ways the core of that was the core in terms of my interest in in in terms of kind of experiential anthropology and subjectivity of phenomenology. That was real that that part of the method really got to the core of that. So, bring it forward to the film, we did the research, and one of some an older man who had had a psychotic, possibly, and what had been at least entered into the study and have been hospitalized in the mid 80s when I met him in 1996. For those of you who are anthropologists, you'll know you connect with some some people quite well in your fieldwork and this is someone I really quite was quite fond of. And so I interviewed him on a monthly basis for for about a year. I mean probably a total of 20 hours of interviews, and he had this extraordinarily complex internal world. So, the last interview I did and this is in 1997, right before the fall of Suharto's, who was at that time the president slash authoritarian ruler, right before he fell in the wake of the Asian economic crisis that in the late 90s, this is a basically a year before that. But in my last interview with pot creator this man, who we're going to see the film on in very hushed and quiet tones, it turned out that he had he had survived this this wave of bloodletting and mass killing in 1965 and 66. And he had never told anyone he had never told his wife, his friends, his children. He had been too frightened to disclose this and I think he chose to tell me this he knew I was going back to America, and it wouldn't come back and harm him. And so I came back to the States and I thought about this one quite a lot and wrote wrote about it, did, you know, case study. And then I finished my dissertation and then started this visual psychological anthropology work that has produced at this point about 15 films. And he was one of the first people I went back to this I thought this is a really interesting story. So from around 2000 to 2006 2007 a while ago, we went and followed his life and interviewed him and his family and tried to piece together in a visual sense the story that I knew from my written ethnographic work. And he then became part of the six part series called afflictions cultural mental illness in Indonesia. And I would say this is probably out of that series my favorite film, just because I'm kind of so fond of pot crate. And I found his story just so so fascinating and it it had these linkages and ways in these very direct linkages in ways that the other films in the series did not have to history and politics and systems of power and domination and oppression and how that becomes internalized. And so that's really the film is about both, you know, the question of how do we understand people with extraordinary experience but also the linkages of people's experience with these wider systems of surveillance and control and oppression and violence and trauma. So I think with that, we'll start the film and then we'll have some time for a question and answer. Okay, thank you. So let's share a screen. Thank you so much for that great film, Rob. And I think we can start the Q&A. And anyone here, I'm not sure whether all of you speak English, but if you want to ask question in Indonesian, I can translate it into English. Okay. And I can translate Rob's answer in it into Indonesian as well. So please, anyone, if you want to ask question, you can, oh, you can talk directly. So I think you can write down your questions on the chat box. Thank you. So what was that drawing that seemed to illustrate the scenes, Rob? Yes, that's that's an interesting opening question. So in the 1930s, Margaret Mead and her then husband Gregory Bateson did fieldwork after after Bateson had been working in what's now New Guinea and Mead and both New Guinea and previously in Samoa and then they spent a year and a half in Bali. And as part of their general kind of psychocultural orientation, they went to several villages of artists. And this is kind of the beginning of the tourist revolution and these these villages, Batuan and actually in Sanor, were developing these artistic traditions for the tourist market. So so Mead approached a number of these artists and gave them a dollar per painting. But in Balinese art at that time was, you know, it was in flux. Previous to that, much of the artwork had been basically religious iconography and temples that was quite stylized. And so they meet and Bateson told the Balinese, you know, paint your daily life paint ritual life religious stories from like the Tantri tradition or other other local traditions, fantasies, dreams. So they got this, they collected over 1500 paintings. And from both Batuan and Sanor. And that's where these create this from somewhat of that period he was born a little bit later than that. But the paintings are so diverse and so interesting that they they they really cover the gamut of of themes and Balinese ethnography. And like, Hilly Geerts, Clifford Geerts's wife is a professor of anthropology at Princeton, has written three books just on this collection. So it's an incredibly rich and diverse set of materials. Yeah. Okay, there's a couple questions now. So should I just should I just go through these? Would you say that mental illness and how it's experienced and perceived by folks who are inflicted, afflicted is context based or culturally centered? I mean, yeah, so culture, obviously, I mean, there's always there's always this tension in psychiatry between contextual and kind of internal or genetic or psychological psychological processes. And so how much in terms of, you know, labeling someone with a particular disorder, or, or if you see it as a clinician, or an anthropologist in front of you, how do you, you know, how much weight do you give to biological or genetic factors? How much to cultural? And it's really at the, it's really at the interface of those where I think really the interesting questions arise. But certainly in the study of schizophrenia, I've worked with many in both the United States and Indonesia, you do see cases that map map on extraordinarily well to internationally recognized standards. But those comprise that kind of what, what the the WHO researchers and others have labeled the kind of S plus variant, meaning this like core in often cases quite decompensated schizophrenia is only about 30% of any particular clinical sample. The other 70% is very diverse. So it's really the majority of the plurality now some majority. And that's where the, from an anthropological perspective, really some more of the interesting work comes in and create to very much fits that if he could even be diagnosed with psychotic illness at all, because we had an American psychiatrist, a Balinese psychiatrist, an American anthropologist and a Balinese anthropologist and none of us agreed on his diagnosis, we had just a verse, a really quite diverse array of understandings and explanatory models that didn't always jive with each other. So yeah, I'm not sure that answers the question, but yeah. So, so, so just go through these, just go through these questions. You know, sure, you can just tell. Okay. Did you come to a conclusion that there are aspects of psychiatry that could that could explain Puck, creatinine, what's related to the spirit realm? Well, no, so from the perspective of psychiatry, and when I when I screened the version of this, right towards the beginning years ago, I regularly train the residents in psychiatry. In fact, I trained them yesterday in at UCLA, and these are, you know, third year residents. And they they immediately recognized these like, oh, his symptoms really are like the people we see in our psychosis clinic. So, so he mapped on in some ways of and they recognized his delusions, hallucinations, but as they're what they label delusions and hallucinations. Now as an anthropologist, as an anthropologist, you know, we not only, you know, we can be kind of professional gadflies, but I don't think that's the greatest role for anthropology. I think our job is to contextualize and make clear these these distinctions and perspectives from from, you know, in a holistic sense from a diverse array of people you encounter in your research and your subject base. So as as an anthropologist, we're very hesitant to just like that. I guess the point of that is psychiatry is just another system of texts and interpretive understandings. And it's not necessarily the main way we think with as an anthropologist. And so how that becomes instantiated in this film is, you know, the psychiatry plays a role we see create those Dr. Cigarani his psychiatrist, we present psychiatric models, we present other models traditional therapeutics, his own subjectivity, family and community understandings. And so then psychiatry takes takes really more in my opinion, more of a balanced way of it's one of a number of diverse ways in order to both understand and possibly more importantly empathize with with the people you're you're researching and working with and our friends with. So so did I did I come to a conclusion, yeah, that psychiatry has has a heuristic utility in that there's a part in the film where create, you know, he takes the he takes an anti psychotic, I think it was, I mean, he was on he was on chlorpromazine thorazine, and then he was on a much faster acting stelazine, which was like how a paratol is the fast acting neuroleptic rapid acting neuroleptic. That's what they were referencing in their discussions. And when he would take the anti psychotic his spirits would become fuzzy and disappear. This is kind of like years ago, there was that when when the SSRIs came onto the market for for treatment of depression and anxiety, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, there was a book called listening to prosaq that if if you turn understandings around and you see the effects rather than the effects on people's lives of these, these medications, you can say oh well if this person had this effect, then they possibly had this diagnosis and I think with creative we could say the same thing, because the anti psychotics cause the diminution of this extraordinary experience, he possibly yeah could fit into the definite and he fits into the definition of psychosis, whether it's useful in any way for us to understand him as someone living with schizophrenia or psychosis is another question. But yeah, there is a heuristic utility. What my colleague Nancy Shepherd Hughes talks about kind of the awesome power of biomedicine, you can't ignore that. But as an anthropologist, you have to put it in as proper place. Yeah. So follow question, does that affect his approach with treatment? Yeah, I mean, the thing I think a quite clear finding in psychiatry or at least in critical approaches to psychiatry is that these substances that we ask people living with severe mental illness to take, some of them are really quite toxic. I mean the end, the long term impact like on a steady diet of these dopaminergic blocking agents, these anti psychotic medications, it has a range of really quite negative functions for people's both experience. I mean, when you're on dopaminergic blocking agents, they may block out the delusions and hallucinations, but they also block out a sense of subjective feelings of well-being. If you don't have a much dopamine circulating in your system, you're not going to feel particularly comfortable. And then in fact, acothesia, this restlessness, when you see someone living with mental illness on the street and their legs are stomping, what they call this thorian stomper, they're pacing around or they're making odd movements with their face, that's not a result of the illness, it's a result of the medication, the stigmatizing result of the medication. So the point with Park Krita on that is that because exactly because he wasn't on a steady diet of anti psychotics, that he was able to utilize them as one of a range of, if you want to call it treatments or care, but it was only one of a range and he's gone years without taking a single pill and has been able to survive and even really thrive for someone in his condition. So in terms of treatment, I would be loath to have Krita be on continuous psychiatric treatment actually. I think that would portend probably a much worse outcome, even though we always think you have to take your meds, you have to take your meds, that is the mantra for people living with with severe mental illness in the United States. And yeah, that's possibly, but if you take your meds continuously, not only does it have all these kind of obvious stigmata, the most obvious is there's another film in the series is Tardis kinesia, which is an irreversible neurological condition associated with long term anti psychotic use. And that is extraordinarily stigmatizing because it causes these face facial grimaces and dystonias that immediately marks someone as ill, that they wouldn't have otherwise. So there is this power in biomedicine, but we also have to be quite cautious and critical about how we understand it. Okay, let's see. It's maybe outside scope of discussion, but when we look back through history, looking at testimonies of spiritual sightings or experience, do you see any similarities? No, I don't. Do you see any similarities with what pop Krita is or was experiences? That's a great question. In fact, that's I would say part of that question is at the core of the film, that there are these alternate ways to experience, to have these, what anthropologist Michelle Stevens calls the autonomous imagination that we have and create this autonomous imagination, which is extremely diverse. I have several articles just kind of on his ontological experience of the spirits and the diversity of these spirit typologies and its linkages on multiple ways with Balinese culture and history. And I think there are linkages with other forms of religious experience globally. It's just that his is so set in this time and place in rural Bali of the zeitgeist of his cohort of Balinese who have lived through, he didn't really live through colonialism, but the Japanese occupation, the Indonesian civil, the Indonesian struggle for independence and then finally the mass violence of 1965, those all deeply shaped his experience and make it quite distinct from other people who have not lived through those forms of quite severe social conflict and violence. So I think there are, you could easily draw similarities with other forms of both psychotic illness, but also religious, if you want to call it that religious experience in different places in the world. Okay, anonymous, we're able to show this film to your main interlock during this family, how do they receive it? Did they agree with the conclusions? Were there any type of collaboration, the filmmakers and others, and the other and making of the film? Yeah, so in answer to that, I always show both rough cuts and final cuts to all of my participants and these now number, you know, easily over 100. And so we've done, we do multiple screenings to the family and then we do community screenings. Actually, if you watch some of the other reflection series, there are the screenings are embedded in the film itself. So for example, in the bird dancer, which is about a young woman with what neurologist diagnosed as Tourette's syndrome, this is multiple tick disorder, part of the film towards the end is her family's understanding of it and a community screening where Gusti IU, the young woman with Tourette's, speaks and other afflicted people with neuropsychiatric illness speak and we show that. And so yeah, so in other films I've done, we do that reflexive representation. It's, you know, it goes back as an extraordinarily important part of ethnographic filmmaking and actually goes back to the, you know, what could be considered the first documentary film, first modern, but the first, really the first documentary and possibly ethnographic film, which is the nook Robert Flaherty's Nook of the North, or even in that film, which was made in the 1924, over almost 100 years ago, he shows, he brings a projector and shows nook some of the footage that he took. And so there's a long tradition of this. And then you don't have to go very far to find, to find that. But yeah, so in answer to the question, we always do that. And we always get the really informed ascent and consent and collaboration with the participants in the film. And I'm not sure you say was there any type of collaboration with the filmmaker and the other in the making of the film? I'm not sure what you're referencing with the other. I mean, I use, I've collaborated deeply with Indonesian psychiatrists and filmmakers. And right now, for the last number of years, the production is based entirely in Indonesia and directed by my produced, I co directed by my Indonesian colleagues. So we have a deep and long standing collaboration. If that's what you're referencing with the other, the other way I could interpret this is do we involve the participants themselves in the filmmaking process and the shooting and the editing that we really haven't done. There is a tradition that the graphic films of basically handing over the whole production to the participants. But you know, in that sort of work I do with people living with mental illness and my latest project is several films on the emergence of autism and its experience by families who have family members who are on, you know, on the spectrum living with, living with autism or neurodiverse. And it, we've tried, but it just doesn't really work very well to, to have them shoot and certainly to edit, but something we've considered. Okay, I'm not sure if I answered that, but okay, relating cretis to the experience 96, would healing or soothing be possible to government conducted a restitution to victims in 65? Yeah, that would be great. I, I think, what do we know from just American history on the context of conflict and its relation to psychiatric illness? If you look at the differences between, on a population basis, between soldiers who came back from World War II versus soldiers who came back from, from the Vietnam War, it was really not only obviously a very different reception on the part of the public and understanding of what, you know, what those wars were about, but those had deep influences on the, on things like the rates of post-traumatic stress disorder that we see post World War II and, and post Vietnam War with obviously the, the Vietnam vets having much higher rates and much poorer outcomes in part because not entirely, and maybe not even a majority, but in part because of the social reception they perceived upon returning from the war. So yeah, so I could imagine if there was some sort of truth and reconciliation process, I mean there has been and actually Professor Marchingwood is, is well, well, well versed in this and could possibly answer that into a greater degree of specificity that I could, but I would think a truth and reconciliation process that included the survivors of 65 route, I mean my experience having made, I've made a feature-length film called 40 Years of Silence on 1965 and it's aftermath in four families. A common theme I heard from community members is, we are as a society now ready to forgive the Pekai, the, the Indonesian Communist Party for what they did to our nation. So they're basically the people who suffered and had family members like Creta murdered in front of them, who witnessed mass killings, those are the ones who we need to forgive. And I think that that has changed among more progressive elements in Indonesia, but in the large part there is still an adherence to the monolithic state narrative of the new order around 1965 and I don't know, it's so kind of you, if you have any perspectives on that if you want to say anything about that, you just came up. Yeah, I can add a bit actually to be honest, the government hasn't done much. Joko, we did promise, you know, at the beginning of his campaign that it would deal with past human rights abuses, but nothing has been done at all. And in fact, Joko is really, has been rather inconsistent in his approach here, he's really a paradoxical man. So on the one hand, he let some activists to go to the IPT, you know, IPT is the International People's Tribunal in 1965. That's on the one hand, he just let them go fine. But on the other hand, he also does not stop the stigmatization and let the propaganda film, oh what is it called, the PENKIANATAN KETI KAPULUS SPK8, the propaganda film, the treachery of the PKI, to be screened again on TV. So that was just really ridiculous for me. And in 2018, actually, when I was back to Indonesia and I had a meeting with the activist of 1965 activists and former victims of 1965, actually some radical groups came to give us a visit and say to us, no, you can't do this meeting, you have no permission. And we actually did it at someone's house. So it's a kind of private meeting with about how many people at that time, 15 people. And suddenly, this group came and then the police said, no, you have to go home now. So that's what happened. It's still happening. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, my engagement was with 65 words, these two films in my ongoing relationship. And I think when you have, I mean, in the United States, 400 years later, we're still dealing with the legacy of slavery and racism on a daily basis. And there were elements in American society that thought, oh, when Barack Obama was elected to the first black president that these issues had receded and they were in the past, they're clearly not in the past, dealing with their issue of racial justice and its implications and possible solutions such as reparations. It's at the heart of American society. And I think some of the issues with 1965, similarly with Indonesia. So I see actually some people, I've been just using the Q&A questions, but I see there's a number of questions in the chat. So why don't I try to go through these? Yeah, so the first one is, wait, let me see, wonderful film questions, okay. To what extent do you attribute the problem to poisoning? Could the psychological problem be a consequential reaction to that or the genetic symptoms too? Yeah, I think the poisoning had a role. Though even that is complicated because the poisoning, the language that you use, like these some broad, which is to spray something, is also the language they use around 1965. And so I think there, obviously, you can't, you should never ignore potent biological effects like this. But I feel in the film, we put it as one of multiple possible explanatory models poisoning with organic chlorides, like this has neurological symptoms. And some of them could be long, long standing. In terms of genetics, there possibly could be epigenetic effects. I'm not familiar with that literature in terms of genetics. I mean, that would be the mechanism, some sort of epigenetic effect. I can't see this next one. Do you know what medication was prescribed? I think I went over that. He was on anti-psychotics, like Stelazine, Thorazine, and Haldol. Oh, did he ever speak about the spirits reaction to the medication? Yeah, well, I dealt with that one too. Also, the spirit to disappear when he's on the medication. I never really, I don't think I asked him though. It's a good question, like, what do the spirits think of the medication? That would be, that would have been a good question. Unfortunately, it's quite, I have not heard, I mean, Kretz is quite elderly now. And the last, he had had, last time I saw him was maybe in 2016, 2017. And he had had a case of meningitis, which caused deafness. So he was fully stone deaf. He could not hear anything. So the interviews have become quite difficult. We have to write out questions and they ask to read them and think about them. So it may not be possible to get that, to answer it, to ask a complex question like that. But it could be. Okay. Curious about the process of making the film. How long had you been working with Poch Kretz before proposing the film? Do you think the presence of the camera conditions its family response to the questions? So the great ethnographic filmmaker, Jean Rouge, addressed this several times in both writings and interviews. And he said, there's like, there's three broad responses. This is a question I get very, very commonly. Um, three broad responses to being, to having a camera and filming some, with filming someone. One is that people become immune to it. They basically, it becomes a feature in their environment. And they forget about it. It's not really much of an influence. That is more or less the case with Kretz. I mean, we were using relatively small cameras. In the early years, it was a single camera with, with, and the cameraman Kretz was quite familiar with. And I think in some cases, yeah, the camera did, and certainly with, with really small cameras, obviously cell phones, but things like GoPros, the camera can entirely disappear. It just leaves people's consciousness, because it's a small object that may be part of their visual field, but they're not paying attention. So that's one is the camera disappears. The second is obviously the camera is really, it really shapes the things that people are willing or unwilling to say that I found to be the case in the, in the early periods, you know, because I film over the periods of years and now decades, I have not found that the camera to be that influential in that case. I think it does either disappear or people become quite accustomed to it. The third, which I also have seen that Rouge mentions is people become more of themselves for the camera. They, they express more of kind of the central issues of who they are and what's at stake in their lives when they're performing in front of a camera. And I've seen that more frequently. So I guess an answer to the question. Oh, there's two. I didn't do the first part. That's the second part. So I think at times the camera influenced some material, but in general did not in this story. And how long he'd been working with Puck Raita. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, I had interviewed him for over like for about a year. Never have bringing a camera. So I probably interviewed him, you know, easily eight or 10 times for several hours. So I knew him quite well and his family and his neighbors before we pulled the camera out. So yeah, that's I think in order to get potent and powerful and emotionally resonant content for ethnographic films, you have to have really have a trusting relationship with the people you're interviewing and the absence of that you're, you're people are going to, I mean, honestly lie to you or they're going to tell you what they think you want them to hear, want them to say, which is not necessarily what's at stake for them and what's important for them. So I think that answered that question. So at the end, when he was wearing the military uniform feeling safe from the spirits of, sorry, I'm speaking too quick. So at the end when he was wearing the military uniform and feeling safe from the spirits, was he taking antipsychotics? No, he was, as I mentioned, he was intermittently on them. And I think at that point, with his kind of layered protective clothing and blankets, he was not on the antipsychotics. So psychiatrists know I would probably say that he was actively, possibly actively psychotic during that period. Maybe. Okay. Is there a way we can see other films, please? Yeah, I was just looking for that. I was looking, I was going to put a, so at the beginning of COVID, if you give me a second, I will put a link to our, we released, I don't know, eight or 10 of our films, including 40 years of silence, the film about 1965 on YouTube. You know, for everyone to see, everyone has asked you just let me, so we find, hold on, just let me go to and get the link to that. Actually, if you search on YouTube with a title, you can, you can find it as well. Yeah. Okay. Here it is. Okay. Yeah. Here is our playlist for about 10 of our films, like just I'm putting it into the chat. Yeah. Is there a way, other films? Yes. So this is to Aisha, this is, here's the link. Thanks so much presentation for sharing the video. I like to jump. Okay. Let's see. I think that's all the questions unless anyone has any further questions. Yeah. And we're almost out of time anyway, so it all works. I have another question, if no one else does, actually, Rob. And yeah, I was just asking, actually, you know, the difference between psychology and psychiatry and psychoanalysts in this case, will it be useful, do you think, in analyzing Bagreta in this case? Yeah. You know, when I started doing these, particularly the Affliction series, I really thought that the audience was, and that was actually in my mind as, as filmmakers and also as writers, but as filmmakers, we have an imaginary audience like, who are you making, who are you speaking to in these films? And very much in the Affliction series, I was speaking to my colleagues in psychiatry and psychology, psychoanalysis related mental health fields. I was doing these as training films for them. Turns out that standard mental health people are just not that interested in this stuff. It's too, it's too different. It doesn't fit in my mind, in screening to these groups, including the psychiatric residents at different medical schools. It's just, it's not what's important to them. In fact, I mean, I remember screening one of my films at the VA in their psychiatry, they have a weekly psychiatry grand rounds. And the first question, this woman like, sprinched up her nose and she's like, so just why would you make such a film like this? Like in a very contentious way. And what I realized is it was so different and outside of their frameworks for understanding something that they just didn't really understand the purpose of it. I guess, so what I realized over time is the most important audience for these films is in Indonesia proper. These are films. So now I'm making my films in my imaginary in my mind for an Indonesian audience. And I think that is, you know, for one, the films have, you know, tens or even hundreds of thousands of views. And they're mostly from Indonesia. And that's comparison. If you do a journal article, you know, five or 10 people may read your article. If that, you know, it's just close set of colleagues. So it has the films I feel have a capacity to express and frame things to audiences in the place you're doing the work. So, yeah, so now in my mind, the audience is really an Indonesian audience. Yeah. Oh, there's a long question here. I'm curious about, are we, we have one minute, so let me read this. I'm curious about pop crates, his family and his village socioeconomic status. It seems from the film that they're at least fairly open to attempting to help him. And they accepted him as a member of the community despite his illness. As mentioned, he visited the hospital in Bangli a few times and a few of the traditional healers were featured, first of which was shown wearing gold bracelets and gold watch. I imagine it wasn't cheap for the family to get treatment for him. I mentioned this because I remember from my time living in Bali hearing stories. I never direct experience of this about mentally ill people who are just incredibly dire situations, even just being chained to a bed and given food and water a few times a day, because the family of the person and villagers had no idea of what to do with a mentally ill person. Yeah. Pasong shackling is a continuing issue. In fact, I'm working on a project with local Indonesian colleagues, not in Bali, but in Java, where there are these treatment centers where people with severe mental illness and quite often behaviorally disordered are literally shackled in these animal pens. I mean, it's quite horrific, but I stayed away from that one because I feel it sends the wrong, I mean, there are certainly cases. And in fact, in this sample of 115 cases, there were two cases where people were shackled as part. So it happens in Bali for sure. And Dr. Suriani, the psychiatrist collaborated with, there's a film on her. I forget the title now, but where she deals with the Pasong issue at length. That said, I've always been hesitant to bring that up as or to explore that visually because it can reinforce this notion as, you know, they're Indonesia's in the dark ages. They're in the middle ages about how they treat people living with mental illness. And the fact is that what I found in general that people are treated better, considerably better in Indonesia when they're living with illness. Something like Kreta, who's married, has meaningful work, meaningful ritual life, has children. If he was living in the United States, he'd almost certainly be homeless here and be excluded from his family. So in terms of treatment, absolutely getting both either biomedical or traditional therapeutics can be expensive, depending on who you're getting the treatment and what sort of treatment in front. And I'm including very much traditional therapeutics, because there are healers who really charge a lot of Rupee, a lot of money, for their services. The thing about psychotic illness, and this applies globally, is the medication, the treatment for this is actually not expensive. Almost all the anti-psychotics, except the latest generation of the atypical anti-psychotics are off-patent. And all around the world, you can go into a clinic in Africa or in South America and Southeast Asia, and they will have a supply of anti-psychotics that are very cheap, because everywhere in the world, people are both frightened and stigmatized, those who are different from them, because those living with what we can consider mental illness. So in terms of treatment with particularly the first generation of anti-psychotics who came out in the 50s, those are common and cheap, and they're generally within the financial ability of most Indonesians, but not all. And they could be made if someone is behaviorally disruptive enough to be brought to the attention, to be brought to, like, bondally to the state mental hospital, they can be treated there at government expense. Okay, so I am practicing psychoanalysts and find your films very interesting. I used to lose in Watari for psychosis myself. That's great, because I've never really understood to lose in Watari. I have a kind of a simple mind. So I'm glad to hear that that's a useful framework. In fact, it's interesting, my daughter and I were talking, she graduated college a few years ago and was very interested in this stuff. So she was encouraging me to go back to reread the lose, which I read in graduate school. So I just started that little project. Yeah. Anything else? I think we're now out of time. Yeah. Well, I think that's it, Rob. Thank you so much. It's been really, you know, like a great, it's a great film and a great discussion. So I really thank you for this. And I'm sorry, once again, that I just had my vaccine yesterday. You've done fine. Yeah. So thank you so much for everyone. Okay, thank you.