Tickled (2016) is very much a story of today, bringing to light the perceptive difficulties in seeing realities often encountered by scientists – in a non-science venue. This is a documentary in which our host, New Zealand reporter David Farrier, is also, in a way, the subject. His object? He’s run across something called competitive endurance tickling, and, given both his employment and his temperament, he’s intrigued and begins to look into it.
He immediately meets with hostility from the purveyor, however, and not just legal – it includes personal insults based on David’s sexuality. And the attacks quickly escalate into relentlessness. Soon representatives of the company behind the effort travel to New Zealand and attempt to dissuade David and his partner from continuing the investigation, to no avail. The company itself is difficult to pin down, but appears to own dozens of oddly named Internet domains. Clearly, this mystery won’t be solved by a few online searches, so David and his cohorts fly to America.
And then things get really weird. I’ll not spoil the mystery for you.
But I will say I started to question everything, even the possibility that this entire documentary is a hoax. As each incident is presented, as each bit of evidence surfaces, my mind wondered, “Could this be planted? A frame-up? A misdirection?” And while scientists rarely wonder about human deceit, the good ones wonder about the veracity of what they’re studying.
In the end, the best conclusion to draw is that someone out there has an excessively twisted mind, whether it’s the putative subject, or someone framing him, or yet someone else. Psychopathy? It’s almost a certainty. This is a wicked, puzzling glimpse into a brain that doesn’t work like mine.
And how is it a documentary for today? Because of how the Internet enables the subject. While the recruitment for the participants in competitive endurance tickling could have been accomplished without the Internet, the effort involved would have been much greater. The other end of the activity, in which videos of competitions are published, would be virtually impossible without the Internet. I suppose a cable channel could be dedicated to them, but the cost would be beyond the resources of most people. Random distributions? To what end? But the Internet makes it trivial to accomplish whatever end is being pursued.
As the credits rolled, the lights came on, and my Arts Editor and I began discussing it, the only other person in our row began to complain. She felt this was a poorly done work of fiction.
But no, it’s not. This is a documentary.
You’ve got to be kidding! No one’s that weird!
There are weirder people out there, I’m sure, but not many.
Strongly recommended.
Postscript: Now I’ve read the Wikipedia page. If you’ve not seen the movie, first see it before following this link. Knowing what’s coming will dull the edge of this knife.
