The Whale

I finally saw this movie as it hit my subscription networks. It is an interesting story from many perspectives that is expertly told and acted. It raises several perspectives relevant to psychiatry but thankfully that explicit connection was left out of the production.  As the final credits rolled – I noticed that it was adapted from a play.  This is the closest I would come to seeing a play.  I do not think that I am constitutionally able to watch plays. They all seem contrived, overacted, and at times require a level of immediate and shared imagination that I do not possess.  I prefer solid ground as a jumping off point – even if things go awry from there.

The stark reality of this film is the home of Charlie (played by Brendan Fraser).  We meet him as he is teaching an online course in creative writing and see a typical Zoom interface. Charlie is the only one without a visual display.  He explains that his camera is broken. The scene cuts to his home. It is a dismal setting.  We see that Charlie is massively obese, barely able to ambulate and then with great effort, and in very poor health. At one point his nurse and friend Liz (played by Hong Chau) enters and tells him that he has hypertension and congestive heart failure to the point he needs to be seen emergently or he will be dead in a few days.  His poor health is displayed many times as he starts laughing but that rapidly turns into a cough and then chest pain. Over the course of the story, we learn that Charlie was not always like this but after losing his lover Alan to suicide he began overeating and gained a massive amount of weight. We see him binge eating at several points in the film – in one case biting off a fourth of a large meatball and cheese sub sandwich and obstructing his own airway to the point that Liz had to jump on his back to dislodge the food. After chastising him she picks the remaining sandwich off the floor and hands it to him.

The food theme is prominent over the several days duration of the film. Charlie gets a pizza delivered every day and he leaves the money in the mailbox.  The delivery driver talks with him through the door and eventually they address each other by their first names. At the last delivery the driver asks Charlies repeatedly if he is OK and appears to walk away.  As Charlie opens the door, he notices the driver is off to his left looking at him and appearing mildly shocked. Neither of them speaks but Charlie goes back in the house obviously upset and binge eats the pizza along with several additional items he adds from his refrigerator.

Charlie’s self-destructive eating and the associated self-loathing is a prominent theme throughout along with the expression of disgust.  He actively seeks confirmation that he is disgusting on a physical basis but only gets it spontaneously from his daughter Ellie (played by Sadie Sink).  Ellie is an angry teenager, performing suboptimally in school and she directs much anger at Charlie for abandoning her at 8 years of age when he left for the relationship with Alan.   Charlie actively seeks a relationship with her and at one point promises her a large sum of money just to spend more time with him, even though the time he has left is measured in days. He repeatedly apologized for his “bad decisions” in the past and emphasizes that he wants to try to make things right.  He would go as far as helping her write essays that might allow her to pass to the next grade in high school.

Two other characters are introduced over the course of the film.  Thomas (played by Ty Simpkins) shows up at Charlie’s door one day as a Christian missionary. He presents himself as a person intent on saving Charlie through God and Christianity.  He comes into dialogues with both Liz and Ellie.  Liz pointedly tells him to stay away from Charlie - that there are people who do not need to be saved.  She also points out the significant flaws in the local church that Thomas is affiliated with. Her father is the pastor of that church and Alan was her brother. Her father tried to arrange a marriage for Alan and described his suicide as a tragic accident. In his conversation with Ellie, Thomas discloses enough details of his life and why he might be estranged from his parents that Ellie is able to track them down. That eventually leads to reconciliation.

Charlie’s ex-wife Mary (played by Samantha Morton) appears toward the end of the film. There is a detailed discussion of the mistakes that were made and Mary’s chance meeting of Alan in a WalMart parking lot.  Even though there is a lot of tension, there is still an obvious level of caring between Charlie and Mary. Mary discusses Charlie’s unflagging optimism as one of his attributes that she misses. At some point it becomes obvious that the large sum of money that Charlie intends to give to Ellie may have come at a cost to his own health.  He has no health insurance and Liz points out what additional services he could have received.  Charlie refuses medical care and emergency services based on the cost, although that refusal is also consistent with his self-destructive path. He hears Liz describe the stress that he is putting her through but is unfazed.

Throughout the film, an essay about Moby Dick is referred to. The basic message of the essay is that the author can deny aspects of his own life and introspection about it – by focusing on killing whales. We eventually learn that this essay was written by Ellie when she was in the 5^th grade.  Charlie asks people to read him the essay when he is in a medical crisis with chest pain, shortness of breath, and diaphoresis.  He finds it comforting.  He also retypes the essay and gives it to her for school and she becomes enraged when she finds out. Charlie emphasizes that he only meant to show her that he appreciated her intelligence and creativity.

At a psychological level, Charlie is dependent and self-effacing. His motivation appears to be trying to correct past mistakes, especially abandoning Ellie, even though that was a complicated process that he was only partially responsible for. His reaction in these problematic scenarios is to accept the blame and go far beyond that to see himself as a disgusting person and ultimately a physically disgusting person (his characterization) that he produced by excessive eating.   

Several reviewers commented on the empathy in the film, but I really did not see any. Nobody seems interested in what happened to Charlie and how he got into this predicament – only that he is in it. They are attached to Charlie for various reasons but also out of their own self-interest.  As in real life, a lot of emotion happens in those settings as people are frustrated with Charlie when he does not accept their advice.

A relevant psychiatric dimension is the issue of involuntary treatment. In these last days of his life we see that Charlie has very high blood pressure, congestive heart failure, and possible angina that necessitate emergency care. Liz confirms that she has discussed his situation with an emergency medicine physician who concurs with her opinion.  Charlie even Googles his numerical blood pressure to confirm that it is an emergency. And through the film, he says he will not be treated and Liz agrees that she will not force the issue. But suppose that she wanted to.  What might happen in this situation?  Charlie could be transported to the ED, treated, and agree with admission for stabilization. He has no apparent psychiatric diagnosis, but it does not take too much imagination to see how any extended dialogue would get into the area of self-care and self-destruction to the point that the attending physician would consider an emergency hold. It is not uncommon to see people who have secluded themselves and not taken care of themselves admitted to inpatient psychiatric units with as many medical problems as Charlie. Suicide by food or lack of self-care is less dramatic than other methods but it can produce the same result.

Would Charlie be seen as depressed?  Probably – but is that the real problem? Moral injury seems to be a more proximate cause superimposed on a man who accepts all of the bad things happening in his life as his fault and reacts according. It allows him a veneer of optimism, while never having to confront the realty that human relationships are more complicated than that.  

Psychiatric speculation aside, this is a complex film that you must see.  The writing and acting is excellent.  The interpersonal drama has unique dynamics and is first rate.  I hope to see all these actors in other projects. It is a well thought out story line – right down to Charlie’s Zoom exit from his creative writing class. And importantly there is a clear message that there are all kinds of people out there struggling through life as best as they can every day. Those struggles may prove resistant to the insights and best advice from others.   

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Jimmy P. - The Psychotherapy of a Plains Indian

Every now and then Netflix surprises me and seems to include come content of interest to psychiatrists.  I watch a lot of Netflix basically because I have a WiFi ready TV planted in front of my ergometer.  I ride an ergometer at least 4 times a week and as anyone who has ridden indoor cycling trainers can attest, that can be painful activity without some diversion.  I had just finished watching a biographical piece about Harry Dean Stanton and found the movie Jimmie P.  It starred Benicio Del Toro and I started watching it on that basis rather than the description that had something to do about psychoanalysis.  Del Toro stars as Jimmie P. or Jimmie Picard a Blackfoot Indian who also happens to be a returning World War II veteran.  We subsequently learn he was a sniper in the war but never shot anyone.  We see a scene where he falls out of the back of a transport truck and sustains a severe head injury.  It is that head injury that sets the story line for the film, the story develops through flashbacks.

I decided to start watch this film based on two things.  The word "psychoanalysis" and the name "Del Toro".  I am not a psychoanalyst, but I have been trained in psychotherapy, have done psychotherapy, and have had a great deal of success with psychotherapeutic interventions.  At the time I was trained all residents did psychotherapy training and were supervised intensively.  One hour of supervision for every hour of patient contact.  A lot of that  supervision was painstaking.  Reviews of audio tapes, video tapes and process notes.  I was intensively supervised on 3 extended psychotherapy patients per week so that was 150 hours per year for three years.  There were also group seminars, group supervision and seminars that consisted of case discussions.  Much of the supervision I had was done by psychoanalysts or psychodynamically oriented psychotherapists.  There were also existentialists, cognitive behavioral therapists, and marriage and family therapists.   My experience with these supervisors was generally positive,  but as you might imagine it was also a grind at times.  At  times, I felt like I was too physically, mentally, and emotionally drained to go into these sessions, but I made them all.  I include this information to illustrate a potential bias in my viewing a psychotherapy movie.

Benicio Del Toro always piques my interest.  I don't think there is any other contemporary actor who can play the conflicted bad man as well as he can.  He is visually interesting to watch and has huge screen presence.  He is one of the few actors that will prompt me to watch a  film cold without much knowledge ahead of time.  In this film he shows his range in his portrayal of a very real guy coming back from the war.  He is a conflicted good man and in fact he is too good at times.  When I was a kid growing up there were many uncles who came back from the war, and as I grew up it was common to hear that a particular person was "never the same" after they came back from the war.   I am old enough to have observed that effect of war on another three generations.  Jimmy P. was one of those guys.

I didn't think of it at the time, but I also have in interest in Native Americans and their culture.  I was born and raised between two reservations.  I note that some of these reservations have been renamed as tribal homelands.  I went to school with folks from these reservations and played sports with them.   My uncle and I were fortunate enough to be on a baseball team that was predominately Native American ball players.  My grandfather and I fished on the reservation, almost exclusively.  Even though those experiences were always positive, the most instructive aspect about knowing about Native Americans and some of their personal situations was the development of biases against them.  Over the last thirty years, they have been more assertive and in some cases more successful.  They have been granted rights that are viewed as controversial by non-native groups, specifically fishing rights.  The backlash has been significant enough to lead any objective observer to conclude that relationships with the native population is actually worse than when I was sitting in a boat on Bad River with my grandfather.

These first four paragraphs are a good indication that there psychodynamic influences in the very decision to select a film.  Getting back to the movie - we first see Jimmie P. at his sisters home.  He is having difficulty functioning.  He is sleeping late, but also has debilitating headaches and a sense of dysequilibrium.  At times he collapses with headaches, chest pains and is sweating through his clothing.  We learn that he has already been medically assessed and that he has a significant scar on the top of his head.  He is eventually admitted to a VA facility that is headed by Karl Menninger.  The focus of the admission is to determine whether or not there are any organic factors involved in the presentation or whether a functional illness is present that can be treated with psychotherapy.  The diagnostic interventions are vague and understandably crude.   For some reason a pneumoencephalogram was postponed until near the end of the film and we learn that the goal was to rule out a cholesteatoma!

At the end of the initial evaluation Dr. Menninger's team is coming up with no medical explanations for Jimmy's symptoms.  Dr. Menninger places a call to Georges Devereux, who is identified initially as an anthropologist with a knowledge of Native Americans.  He convinces Devereux to come to the hospital and do an assessment on Picard.  It was unclear to me about his professional orientation apart from his qualification as an anthropologist but it became apparent that he was also functioning as a psychoanalyst and getting his own analysis from faculty at the hospital.  After several interviews he presents his formulation to Menninger and colleagues and they like what they hear.  They ask him to stay on and engage Picard in psychotherapy.   The bulk of the film is a detailed psychotherapeutic conversation between Devereux and Picard.

That is where the real work for the viewer comes in.  My speculation is that whether the viewer does stay engaged depends on their psychological mindedness or ability to stay interested in the narrative.  That narrative that is built on Devereux's interpretations and clarifications and flashbacks that are designed to elaborate on what Picard is describing in the sessions.  There are several indirect discussions and enactments of transference and countertransference in the film.  In one very good scene Picard gets angry with Devereux and they discuss the importance of discussing the anger and associated events with the therapist.  There were also many good examples of real situations and how they are handled well but at times imperfectly in therapy sessions.   Scenes like this can lead experts to take issue with the way they are portrayed in the cinema.  My usual standard for cinema is that it is well executed from a technical cinematic standpoint, that it is entertaining and that I like it as art.   It certainly passes that standard.   Since we are dealing with just fragments of therapy sessions, any errors are difficult to assess.  I found myself thinking about taking too many notes early in the course of therapy as a possible example.   Therapy was also portrayed as hard work that results in somewhat erratic progress.  The necessary relationship  for therapy and a working therapeutic alliance seemed to be emphasized in the film, but over the course of the film it seemed like Devereux became more distant.  It may have been written that way to show the effect of termination and possibly supervision on the part of the analyst.

Devereux's personal life is also a focus in the movie.  He is having an affair with a married lover Madeleine.  Many critics see this a a diversion away from the main text of the film, but I saw it as more important than that.  In many ways Madeleine is an idealized lover.  She is bright, very attractive, likeable, and at times dotes on Georges.   In my observation of Georges, he just does not seem to have a lot going for him.  He seems to spend a lot of time on anthropological junkets, is somewhat of a nerd, does not seem emotionally resonant with Madeline, and seems fairly indifferent when it is time for her to leave.  Madeline also has a statement and a soliloquy in the film that I saw as critical.  One is an overview of how the brain is the central organ in the body and the role of psychoanalysis in psychosomatics.  The other has to do with the impact that an idealized lover has on a person, why they do not need to be forgotten, and the ongoing impact on one's  life.   I think that she also provides contrast between the advice that the analyst gives his patient and how he runs his own life.  That is an interesting thought in a movie that includes Karl Menninger.   One of Menninger's theories is that there is not much difference between people with mental illness and people who don't have mental illness.   Jimmy P. is a great illustration of that idea extended to include the fact that there is really no difference between Native Americans and the rest of us.  People seeing this film can probably identify with many of the themes and conflicts that Jimmie P. had to deal with.

I had the usual associations to the film.  I have treated many people with psychosomatic problems like Jimmy P.  These days most of the work has to go in to the idea that there is not a pill for these problems, but that other strategies can be useful.  It is very probable in modern times that the correct treatment of these serious psychosomatic symptoms gets buried under a long series of "medication trials."  I could see Jimmy being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Panic Disorder, Major Depression, and possibly an alcohol use disorder.  I can see all of that happening in one 20 minute session by a nonpsychiatrist.  I could see him walking out of that first session with an SSRI, a benzodiazepine, and possibly prazosin - all medications high up on the PTSD algorithm.   The issue of diagnosis came up in the last meeting between Picard and Devereux.  After discussing the pneumoencephalogram results, Devereux asks whether Picard would like to know his diagnosis.   He hands him a piece of paper with the diagnosis "Psychic Trauma".

That's my initial review.  There are some addition reference materials I would like to look at including a suggested book and the actual script.  A script with dialogue this intensive probably requires an additional read or two.  There is a lot of information contained in the dialogue between Picard and Devereux.  As far as I know there are no good models or methods for analyzing the information content in therapeutic sessions and how that information is used.  I ended up rating the film 5 stars on Netflix.  But keep in mind that rating is from a guy who has talked to people at least 6-7 hours per day for the past thirty years.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Matt Zoller Seitz.  Jimmy P.  This is a good review by a professional reviewer who thought this was a good film and has opinions about it that contrast with mine.
  

Supplementary 1:   Given my comments about psychotherapy and psychopharmacology it is easy to see how those issues can be politicized and how discussions about both of those modalities can be very polarized.  The fact that a person with complex problems is more likely to see a psychopharmacologist first should not mean that they are not receiving psychotherapy informed treatment.  One of the most striking examples that I can think of is a psychopharmacologist I worked with for many years.  He started and ran a psychopharmacology specialty clinic.  The people who saw him had a uniformly positive experience based on their relationship with him and what how he discussed problems with them.  He was and is certainly an expert in psychopharmacology but he was providing a lot more than that.

I think we are past the time where there needs to be an open discussion and guidelines about psychotherapeutically informed psychopharmacology.  That would include a focus on the relationship, a discussion about that fact that there are probably other things that need work in addition to the medication, and a discussion of the meaning of the diagnosis and meaningfulness in general in a persons life.

These ideas have obvious implications for the stilted billing and coding system and the idea that anybody can prescribe psychiatric medications.  Expert prescribing requires knowing about what is going on in addition to the diagnostic criteria and algorithms and what else can be done.

The Ultimate Antipsychiatry Movie?

Side Effects may qualify as a new level of antipsychiatry film.  I went to see this film last night with a vague notion that it was a thriller with some surprise plot twists and that it may have something to do with psychiatry. I walked out one hour and 46 minutes later with the impression that I had seen an antipsychiatry movie on a grander scale than previously observed. My previous standard was the psychiatrist who happened to be a serial killer and cannibal. The psychiatrists portrayed in this film were not as aggressive but certainly had their fair share of criminal activity, unethical behavior, and boundary violations.  The sheer scope of that behavior was striking.

The plot unfolds as we get to know Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara).  She appears to be depressed and even suicidal at times. This depression occurs in the context of significant life stressors including the incarceration and subsequent release of her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) for securities fraud. There is an overall impression that the couple lost quite a bit of status and financial resources as a result of that problem. We see her struggling at work and eventually intentionally injuring herself. That leads to her initial encounter with Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law).  Dr. Banks initiates treatment with antidepressant medication and Emily seems to be experiencing intolerable side effects from the initial SSRIs.  In the meantime, Dr. Banks is in touch with Emily's previous psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who suggests a new recently approved antidepressant.  Emily takes this new medication and appears to be experiencing even more side effects right up to the point that she kills Martin while she is apparently “sleepwalking” as a medication related side effect.

From the initial perspective, it seemed like a heavy-handed “psychiatrists corrupted by Big Pharma” film until that point. After all Emily seems to be clearly made ill by the drugs and that point is emphasized cinematically by slowing down the entire scene in what seems to be her drug addled perspective.  Her psychiatrist seems indifferent to the problem and the fact that her spouse is getting more angry about the situation.  At one point the representative of a pharmaceutical company offers to pay Dr. Banks a considerable sum of money for doing research on the new antidepressant. There is a suggestion that Dr. Banks is already spread too thin. In that same scene, the representative emphasizes that she can buy psychiatrists meals and they banter about consulting fees.  Dr. Siebert hands Dr. Banks a pharmaceutical company branded pen with the name of the new drug printed on the side.  The sum of the cinematic effect at that point is to suggest that antidepressants are very toxic drugs, psychiatrists inflict more problems on people with these drugs, and that psychiatrists essentially prescribe these drugs because they are pawns for Big Pharma.  Admittedly nothing more than you might read in the Washington Post.

The plot lurched forward at that point to the issue of a not guilty by reason of insanity defense and the interactions of Dr. Banks with his patient even after she was sent away to a forensics facility. There was also considerable emphasis on the interaction between Dr. Banks and Dr. Siebert.  I will try to point out problems that occur along the way without giving away the rest of the plot. The first problem at that point in the movie was both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney suggesting that Dr. Banks should consult for their side. The fact that Dr. Banks has a treatment relationship with Emily makes his consulting with either side a clear conflict of interest, even in a non-criminal matter. He continues to see Emily at the state forensics facility.  At that time he is seeing her only to advance his interests and they no longer have a therapeutic relationship.  He threatens her, essentially blackmails her, and administers a questionable treatment in an unethical manner.  We later learn that Dr. Siebert also has an inappropriate relationship with Emily and has been involved in criminal activity with her.

At one point, Dr. Siebert attempts to ruin Dr. Banks’ professional reputation and relationship with his wife by releasing a letter from a former patient and manipulated photographs of Dr. Banks and Emily. His partners react strongly and fire him from their practice. An investigator from the state medical board seems suspicious of Dr. Banks.  Part of this side plot seems to be the only plausible aspect of this film and only insofar as complaints against physicians and psychiatrists are common and greatly outnumber the incidence of inappropriate physician behavior. The reaction of Dr. Banks’ partners to this material as well as an adverse outcome is overdone.  Any psychiatrist treating people with severe mental illnesses has adverse outcomes.  Most reasonable people agree that an adverse outcome in medicine and psychiatry does not imply either negligence or criminal intent.

I am generally focused on the purely cinematic aspects of any film that portrays psychiatrists. I explained my rationale for this approach in a previous review.  My approach is based on the low likelihood of seeing an accurate cinematic portrayal of a psychiatrist.  I imagine that other professionals have the same experience. The problem with this film is that the actions of psychiatrists are the major part of the plot and it is difficult to focus on the motivations and personalities of the other characters.  The character of Emily is not developed very well and her actions are difficult to understand.  Dr. Banks and Dr. Siebert are certainly much more active but their de novo sociopathy and unethical behavior have no context.  This lack of character development, dominant scenes by psychiatrists, and the implausibility of those scenes makes this a difficult film to watch.

Regarding the entire issue of why I referred to this as an anti-psychiatry movie that is based on the classification from the Oxford Textbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry. It can be found in the footnote to this post (reference 2).  This film is a good illustration of the biomedical psychiatry as political control cliché.  The psychiatrists in this film are unhindered by any legal, ethical, or professional barrier in promoting their own self interests.  Their obnoxious behavior seems on par or worse than the actual crimes that were the focus of the story line and seems to be more than the typical antipsychiatry bias that is expected in the media. 

The psychiatrist as bogeyman is alive and well at the cinema.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Silver Lining Playbook - Propsychiatry?

I went to see this film today for a couple of reasons.  Several people recommended it to me as a “pro-psychiatry” movie.  And I saw Robert De Niro interviewed about this movie with some of the cast and he was overcome with emotion and attributed it to the main character of the story and what he apparently went through with bipolar disorder.  As a film the structure and pace of this are well done.  It is enjoyable to watch.  The ensemble cast of Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro and Jackie Weaver are focused at times on how depression and bipolar disorder affect people and their families.  I think it is generally known that the film focuses on Cooper’s character Pat, at the outset.  We learn that he has been court ordered to a psychiatric hospital.  In one of the opening scenes his mother picks him up and drives him to home to Philadelphia where he is supposed to comply with court ordered therapy, medications, and the conditions of a restraining order that prohibits him from contacting his wife or coming within 500 feet of her.  A police officer shows up to encourage compliance with the restraining order.

The first question in evaluating the movie and my friends’ comments is whether this very entertaining and well acted film is psychiatrically plausible.  Could the Cooper character (Pat Solitano) assault someone with the vigor we see in the film and end up being diverted to what appears to be a low security state psychiatric facility.  My understanding is that the film is based on the novel The Silver Linings Playbook by Matthew Quick.   There seems to be a general consensus that the film version is a very loose adaptation so I suppose I would need to read the novel to see the way this part of the plot was framed.  In real life, assaultive behavior in most states is handled as a criminal matter rather than court ordered psychiatric treatment.  It is one of the reasons that county jails have become large psychiatric facilities.  In some cases there is psychiatric care provided in jail.  In more enlightened systems competency evaluations are provided in jail and that may result in diversion to mental health court rather than criminal court.  An insanity plea has a low likelihood of success and defense attorneys are reluctant to consider it because the length of stay in a psychiatric hospital may be longer than in jail.

In this case Pat has been in the hospital for about 8 months.  We are told his mother made some kind of a deal to get him out.  In the process, one of his fellow patients leaves in the same car illustrating that security is not a priority.  While he is in the hospital, Pat spits his medication out after a mouth check by a nurse and when he gets home he proclaims he is not taking the medication because it affects his mental clarity and gives him physical side effects.  He is intense, wakes his parents up in the middle of the night, and creates a high level of tension in their home.  His parents seem at a loss in terms of how they can help him and invariably end up reminding him about the conditions of his release.  His apparent mental illness peaks with a scene where the entire neighborhood is disrupted and he physically injures his parents.  He eventually begins taking the medication.

His relationship with Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) begins in parallel with his initial stability and proceeds as he is getting more stable.  She also discloses a significant depression associated with her husband’s death and some sexual promiscuity.  She is portrayed as a very intense and at times angry and agitated women who is aware of the controversial parts of her character and says she has accepted them.  She has several angry confrontations with Pat and a very animated confrontation with his family about whether or not she is good for their home team’s juju.  Her emotional relationship to Pat as he recovers is one of the most compelling parts of the film.

At various moments, Pat is seen with his psychiatrist Dr. Patel (Anupam Kher) who does a good job of engaging a hypomanic Pat in movie psychotherapy.  Dr. Patel did have qualities that most people would like to see in a physician.  He listened, he was engaged, and he was able to relate to Pat.  In the first clinic scene, we learn that Dr. Patel played some music (or said that he did) to see how Pat would react.  Pat trashed the magazine stand in the waiting area.  This is dramatic license rather than actual psychiatry.  I can’t imagine any reasonable psychiatrist who would be eager to provoke a reaction from a person with a history of aggression who has been conditionally released from a state psychiatric facility.  The reality of these appointments for people with severe mental illnesses is that most of the time is not focused on psychotherapy.  In most public or managed care clinics Dr. Patel would have about 20 minutes to see Pat, discuss his symptoms, discuss medication side effects, order and review labs, and do the necessary documentation.  A casual armchair conversation like the one portrayed in the movie can occur only in special circumstances.

After the initial sessions we next meet Dr. Patel tailgating in the parking lot outside of the Philadelphia Eagle’s game.  He embraces Pat and utters a word that I have never heard a psychiatrist say.  There is an ugly scene involving racism and Dr. Patel and his fellow Indians and some of the locals.  Pat is back in the middle of this fighting to protect his brother.  Although he is arrested they all (including Dr. Patel) end up back at Pat’s parents home – a significant boundary problem.

I think that it is pretty obvious that I don’t really see this as a “pro-psychiatry” movie.  Psychiatrists don’t really act like Dr. Patel and many of the scenes highlighting problems with mental illness are more probably affected by dramatic license.  Some of those scenes were well done in terms of the chaos, aggressive behavior, anger and stress associated with mental illness.  Critics have faulted the film for not going far enough diagnostically, being an antipsychiatry film in that it demonstrates the failures of medical psychiatry, and generally seeing it as a random display of neurosis without enough details.  I think the outlines are there, but let’s face it.  This is not a clinical exercise.  This is art.  When I go to the movies, I am looking for compelling characters and good acting.  It is even better if those characters are acting out a fantasy that I can identify with.  Cooper and Lawrence clearly have a level of intensity that you don’t see in many places these days.  So while this film was really not about psychiatry (certainly not “pro-psychiatry”) it was very entertaining and it captured a lot of the reasons why I go to the movies.

I would like to have read what Robert De Niro read that gave him insights into the pain of the main character.  From what I saw today, they only scratched the surface on that issue.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA