![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by Deb R on January 11, 2000, at 8:06:17
In reply to Re: Movie Therapy, posted by Elizabeth on January 11, 2000, at 1:32:51
I had been looking forward to seeing the movie "Grand Canyon" and each time I planned to go, something would stop me, like kids being sick, work (gotta grab that when I can!) and so on. Finally it was being advertised as "last days" so I knew I had to go, and soon!
Finally got there, paid my money and entered the theatre - I was the only person in the whole theatre! (this theatre is in a complex of about 8 cinemas in total.) Wow - I ran out to the kiosk and bought lots of munchies, ran back in and was still the only person there! I sat back (even put my feet up on the seats in front....never done that before!) and proceeded to have the best time ever.
I think the movies are very important, as well as the memories of the times when we see them, the people we are with, how we are feeling at the time. Grand Canyon was a pretty good movie, not the greatest, but when I saw it, alone in the theatre, it made it that much more memorable.
Deb.
Posted by Morc on January 11, 2000, at 14:41:54
In reply to Re: Movie Therapy, posted by Noa on January 8, 2000, at 0:52:57
Good God! I watched some Three Stooges shorts on AMC the other day and laughed my ass off. I tend to prefer innocent, heart-warming stuff to lift me up. "Court Jester" with Danny Kaye is an all-time favorite. ("The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle...")
Posted by anna on January 11, 2000, at 17:34:25
In reply to Re: Movie Therapy, posted by Morc on January 11, 2000, at 14:41:54
> Good God! I watched some Three Stooges shorts on AMC the other day and laughed my ass off. I tend to prefer innocent, heart-warming stuff to lift me up. "Court Jester" with Danny Kaye is an all-time favorite. ("The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle...")
My mom refused to let me watch The 3 Stooges"--she felt they were violent. I think that must be why I am now a testement to modern pharmacology!
(And hide everytime someone says curly or moe.)
Posted by Cass on January 11, 2000, at 23:37:42
In reply to Re: Movie Therapy, posted by anna on January 11, 2000, at 17:34:25
> My mom refused to let me watch The 3 Stooges"--she felt they were violent. I think that must be why I am now a testement to modern pharmacology!
> (And hide everytime someone says curly or moe.)Just a little note: My mother didn't let me watch the 3 Stooges for the same reason, nor did she let me watch frightening things. The irony was that my mother was psychologically abusive and rejecting to a pathological degree. People never understand the contradiction. I don't fully understand it myself. Well, anyways, to this day, I can't enjoy the 3 Stooges either. It seems sadistic.
Posted by JohnB on January 12, 2000, at 9:25:46
In reply to Anna, movie therapy, posted by Cass on January 11, 2000, at 23:37:42
I think if I had to choose just one comedy to take with me to a desert island, it would be "Harvey" starring Jimmy Stewart (late 1940's). The story is about a small-town eccentric who is either a genius or a lunatic, depending on who you ask, (he has a 6 foot 3 1/2" invisible white rabbit as his best buddy). Classic is an overworked word, but this movie is a classic.
Posted by dove on January 12, 2000, at 9:32:04
In reply to Cognative Movie Therapy - "HARVEY", posted by JohnB on January 12, 2000, at 9:25:46
This is one of my daughter's favorites. She also had an invisible friend, a giant bunny named "Bekka Boo Bunny" and she completely related to Jimmy, as scary as that is for me to think about :-)
dove
Posted by Morbius on January 16, 2000, at 4:12:47
In reply to Re: Cognative Movie Therapy - "HARVEY", posted by dove on January 12, 2000, at 9:32:04
Anybody see the forbidden Planet?
Posted by Noa on January 16, 2000, at 7:04:58
In reply to Re: Cognative Movie Therapy - "HARVEY", posted by Morbius on January 16, 2000, at 4:12:47
A bit of a digression from the "therapeutic" aspects of movies....
On Friday afternoon, after I left work, I did not want to go home. I was in a pissy mood for some reason. And those of you who have read the "transitions" thread know I have a hard time with them. So I went to the movies. I thought the theatre would be empty, as it was only 4:15, but it was about half full. Anyway, what I saw was Girl Interrupted. I really liked it. But it is not something to see if hospitalization issues are still raw. For example, a friend of mine had a terrible experience at the hospital that the story is based on (they changed the name, of course). They kept her there and gave her the diagnosis de jour, a controversial one (like in the movie). That is, they kept her there as long as they thought (assumed) her father could pay the bills. As soon (and I mean within minutes) as they discovered that he couldn't, they shipped her to the state hospital, where the psychiatrist discharged her after 2 days of observation, telling her she didn't need to be in the hospital any more. I certainly wouldn't recommend this film for my friend--it would be too evocative.
I really liked it.
Posted by juniper on January 17, 2000, at 14:49:16
In reply to Re: Movies, posted by Noa on January 16, 2000, at 7:04:58
noa, i am glad that you gave a mini review of girl, interrupted. the book is one of my favorites. i was weary of seeing the movie because movies based on books are often pretty dissapointing; everything that matters, the literature, gets lost. and i don't often enjoy movies depicting characters with mental disorders because they never get it quite right--movies seem to glamorize or humorize these disorders. but i saw an interview with winona ryder where she talked of her own depression, not in a whiney or self-sacrificing way, but very straightforward, so i did want to see what she did with the book.
thanks!
Posted by noa on January 17, 2000, at 16:37:42
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by juniper on January 17, 2000, at 14:49:16
I had hoped to get to read the book before the movie, but went to see the movie on a whim. Not having read it, I don't know if you will be frustrated by the book=>movie transformation.
I have been thinking about the movie more. I liked it, primarily because the acting was very good, so I cared about the characters. But there is something unsettling about the gestalt of the film, the big picture, how the essential conflicts are resolved. I guess I shouldn't get so hung up on this because the conflicts were within and among the patients, and the staff and hospital play a very minor role. They are just a backdrop, in fact.
What is bugging me is this impression that the main character gets better because she "gets with the program", rather than fighting it. But we never really find out what led her to have the problems she has. We see her struggling to define herself through her relationships with those around her--in the hospital. But we never really see or hear why she is such a mixed up, depressed kid. And, although they hint at family tendencies (I think the line is, "Borderlines are five times more likely to have an immediate family member, usually a parent, who is borderline"), biology is not on the table at all. So the idea is that this mixed up kid developed her problems environmentally and will recover through psychoanalysis. Ok, assuming for the sake of the film we accept this, we don't really learn more about her problems. We don't even get to eavesdrop on the analysis sessions even though we see them (we dont hear what she says).
In the end, it really seems more like a movie about adolescence and coming of age than about mental illness. And maybe it is a true portrait of how young people make the decisions they make.
Here's the thing: Despite how well portrayed the action among the patients is, it is the message hovering in the background that bothers me: In this movie the message is that the powerless need to accept what the powerful have to offer. Fighting it means death, either sudden or drawn out. This is classic conservative hollywoodism, although subdued, thankfully, by being in the background, while the really intersting stuff is in the foreground. I should say here that I would not want a classic Disneyesque, puss-in-boots type story, either, where the powerless triumph ever so tritely over the powerful.
Posted by Cass on January 17, 2000, at 18:11:29
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by noa on January 17, 2000, at 16:37:42
noa, thank-you so much for that critique. A story of the powerless giving into the powerful is definitely not what I want to see. I am repulsed by the thought of it.
Posted by Noa on January 17, 2000, at 18:41:14
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by Cass on January 17, 2000, at 18:11:29
Cass, I hope I didn't overstate it. That is really in the background, and it happens to be something I am alert for in films--the metamessages, political messages, etc. Kind of radical of me.
Really, mostly the movie takes place in the foreground, between and among the patients. As I said, the background of the hospital is just a setting, it doesn't play much of a role. My reading of the political message is from look for it in the background. It really isn't there in the foreground.
In a way, the main character finds and exerts her power through the course of the film. She finds out how to choose her own path.
Just wanted you to know this, because it might be a film you would value seeing.
Posted by Noa on January 17, 2000, at 18:47:14
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by Cass on January 17, 2000, at 18:11:29
Another thought--
Although the film ends on a hopeful note, there is definitely upsetting material at points in the film that should be considered when deciding whether or not to see it. For anyone dealing with raw issues of suicidality, trauma, incest, hospitalization, etc. this film could be very upsetting.
Posted by Elizabeth on January 17, 2000, at 23:13:20
In reply to Re: Movies, posted by Noa on January 16, 2000, at 7:04:58
> For example, a friend of mine had a terrible experience at the hospital that the story is based on (they changed the name, of course).
Wow, everybody's been there! :)
> They kept her there and gave her the diagnosis de jour, a controversial one (like in the movie). That is, they kept her there as long as they thought (assumed) her father could pay the bills. As soon (and I mean within minutes) as they discovered that he couldn't, they shipped her to the state hospital, where the psychiatrist discharged her after 2 days of observation, telling her she didn't need to be in the hospital any more. I certainly wouldn't recommend this film for my friend--it would be too evocative.
Read the book _Mount Misery_, which also takes place at McLean.
> I really liked it.
Cool! Some friends and I have been trying to organize a movie mob to see it, so I'm glad to hear it was good.
Posted by Noa on January 18, 2000, at 0:13:18
In reply to Re: Movies, posted by Elizabeth on January 17, 2000, at 23:13:20
Thanks, Elizabeth, I'll look for "Mount Misery".
I am impressed that you are rounding up a group of friends to see a film.
Posted by JohnB on January 18, 2000, at 2:55:04
In reply to Re: Movies, posted by Noa on January 18, 2000, at 0:13:18
Speaking of movies on this subject, one of the first was "The Snake Pit" with Olivia DeHaviland (1946?). Despite the melodramatic title, it is really quite good in parts, and for it's time it was a breakthrough.
Some parts are a little dated, like the god-like, pipe-smoking psychotherapist, and the too-easy "cure" after a whirlwind theraputic tour of DeHaviland's early childhood.
Posted by Elizabeth on January 18, 2000, at 5:12:04
In reply to Re: Movies, posted by Noa on January 18, 2000, at 0:13:18
> Thanks, Elizabeth, I'll look for "Mount Misery".
It's good (though like _Girl, Interrupted_, some people find it disturbing). It's by Dr. Stephen Bergman under the pen name Samuel Shem; it's the sequel to _The House of God_, a medical cult novel.
> I am impressed that you are rounding up a group of friends to see a film.
:-) Thanks. (Friends from group therapy, in fact!)
Posted by Morc on January 18, 2000, at 13:25:24
In reply to Re: Cognative Movie Therapy - "HARVEY", posted by Morbius on January 16, 2000, at 4:12:47
> Anybody see the forbidden Planet?
Yes. One of the best, despite its dated, corny aspects. Even better, perhaps: "The Day the Earth Stood Still." Klaatu barada nikto!
Posted by dj on January 18, 2000, at 14:54:58
In reply to Re: Movies, posted by Elizabeth on January 17, 2000, at 23:13:20
in the psych-lit vein:
In a House of Dreams and Glass : Becoming a Psychiatrist
by Robert Klitzman
------------------------------
Editorial ReviewsFrom Booklist , February 1, 1995
Klitzman affords a highly personal look at his four-year psychiatric residency. Not the usual first-year resident, Klitzman had spent time at the National Institutes of Health and in Papua New Guinea studying kuru. On his first night on call, he was abruptly exposed to a violent patient requiring physical restraints and the quiet room. His at first fumbling but increasingly more comfortable experiences with outpatients, inpatients, and ultimately his own patients gave him opportunities to mature as an individual and as a practicing psychiatrist. He learned from street person Ronald Bransky as well as from a variety of neurotic, borderline, and psychotic patients and was able to help some of them in making sense of their torn lives. One of the hardest things to learn was knowing when to question the authority, even domineering, of his supervisors and administrators. Klitzman concludes his story with pleas for more openness and flexibility in psychiatric education and for greater understanding of the relevance of social problems to psychiatry. William Beatty
Copyright© 1995, American Library Association. All rights reservedBTW, if you check out the rest of the reviews of this interesting read at http://www.amazon.com
you'll see more of the text of Kay Redfield Jamison review in The Washington Post Book World (March 19, 1995), a bit of which follows:"While I feel that Klitzman overstates the degree of subjectivity involved in psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, there is no doubt that such subjectivity is a very real problem. He describes its consequences: "In medicine, for example, failures were ascribed t! o patients' high sodiums or low potassiums. When disaster ! occurred in psychiatry, I had nothing to blame but my subjective impressions that had led to my decisions - not objective factors."
Klitzman ultimately directs a great deal of his anger at his clinical supervisors who, he felt, from the beginning, engaged in "a process of equating residents [doctors in training] with patients that would come to shadow much of my training." His accounts of the inconsistencies in diagnostic and treatment practices that he encountered in his different supervisors gives a realistic picture of what can happen when a teaching hospital encourages a diversity of theoretical orientations, but no cohesive clinical viewpoint is presented. Klitzman reserves particular spleen for the psychoanalysts, whom he regarded as condescending, aloof, unsupportive and cold: "Those who most talked about and professed the importance of feelings - the psychoanalysts - were often the coldest and least feeling toward their patients and supervisees! ."
In a House of Dreams and Glass is an excellent account of a not-so-excellent education; it illustrates the vulnerabilities of a less than perfect teaching system, as well as the strengths that come about from a total immersion into clinical responsibility. It would have been interesting to know a bit more about Klitzman himself, as well as his life outside the hospital, but I recommend his book as a valuable account of one particular kind of training that goes into becoming a psychiatrist."
>>>>>>
An interesting read from a patient's perspective as well as a good overview of small town life in Altlantic Canada, in this case is: Strange Heaven by Lynn Coady. This award winning first novel does NOT even appear on the amazon.com site however here's a brief portion of a review from
(http://www.indigo.ca/cgi-bin/bookrec.cgi?bn=0864922302) of this book which is semi-autobiographical:
"Bridget Murphy, Strange Heaven’s emotionally bedraggled anti-heroine, spends the first half of the book in the psychiatric ward of a Halifax children’s hospital, recovering from the trauma of giving birth to a baby who was immediately given up for adoption. Depressed and apathetic, she responds to all questions about her welfare with a toneless “I dunno,” but she seems positively healthy next to most of her fellow patients. There’s Kelly, who’s recovering from anorexia, and Maria, who’s dying from it; foul-mouthed, tattooed Mona, who has a habit of running away from her wealthy father, and Byron, an acne-ridden geek with bizarre delusions of grandeur. As described by Coady, life on the ward is both nightmarish and laugh-out-loud funny; it’s like a Janet Frame novel reconceived by Adrian Mole author Sue Townsend.
When Bridget returns to the town her friend Alan finds so poignant, to her noisily dysfunctional family and her gossipy, hard-drinking friends, she’s like a castaway from another planet. Numb and detached, she regards the people she’s known all her life with sudden incomprehension. Seen through her bemused gaze, mundane and uncomfortable events – a rancorous Christmas dinner, a boozy house party, a visit to a family mourning their murdered daughter – become surreal and blackly hilarious. What’s surprising is that even though home is at least as nightmarish as the psych ward, it turns out to be a better place for Bridget’s wounded psyche to heal."This book was reviewed by: Quill & Quire
Posted by Adam on January 18, 2000, at 17:54:21
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted-more, posted by Noa on January 17, 2000, at 18:47:14
Based on a review of this film (Girld, Interrupted), I have decided not to see it, though I might change my mind...perhaps by info. I can gather here.
The review (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/movies/00/01/13/GIRL_INTERRUPTED.html), and other information I have gathered through a person who saw it, lead me to believe that at the least I would intensely dislike the protagonist, and, most probably, the rest of the film as well. Main reason: The film's raison d'ętre is to give us a little trip to a fun house or freak show of sorts (through the eyes of an overindulged suburbanite remarkable only for her self-absorbtion) that winds up being not much fun but plenty freaky, with little else really going on. The suggestion is the film exploits the subject of mental illness for sheer entertainment value, just as the protagonist does, and the only tangible moral is that playing games like this results mostly in a bad trip. Given my own experience, I can't imagine something I'd like to see less, not because I'm afraid of controversy or disturbing images, but because the film's protagonist, and its own handling of the subject matter, are so trivial.
Does this seem accurate?
> Another thought--
>
> Although the film ends on a hopeful note, there is definitely upsetting material at points in the film that should be considered when deciding whether or not to see it. For anyone dealing with raw issues of suicidality, trauma, incest, hospitalization, etc. this film could be very upsetting.
Posted by Cass on January 18, 2000, at 21:17:19
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by Adam on January 18, 2000, at 17:54:21
If you want to listen to something poignant and hysterical, get Whoopi Goldberg's, "Live on Broadway" recording. She portrays 4 vulnerable/streetwise characters living on the fringes of society. I thought that some of Whoopi Goldberg's insights were profound and full of compassion, and all the while I was laughing so hard that my cheeks hurt. I developed a great deal of respect for Whoopi Goldberg after listening to that soundtrack and after seeing "The Color Purple."
Posted by juniper on January 19, 2000, at 2:22:35
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by Adam on January 18, 2000, at 17:54:21
all this girl, interrupted talk got me thinking. i remember really liking the book, though i couldn't quite remember why. there were a few memorable quotes that i could run through my head, but i still didn't remember the story in its entirety. so i picked the book up to thumb through it, and ended up rereading it today. it is incredibly readable.
the story itself is interesting (and the writing is very clear and graceful), but not for the reason most memiors on mental disorders are. it is not about the author's struggle with depression or borderline personality disorder (what she was diagnosed with) but more about her absurd daily routines in the hospital and the patients she forms relationships with. the book itself has a detatched quality about it, of an outsider looking in--and with this quality comes a touch of astonishment at who she is and who the other patients are. (and sometimes, per adam's review, the book can seem like a freak show tour--but it is more like the hospital itself is an absurd place and the characters follow suit) the author never seems to be in emotional pain, but she can explain in simple and alluring terms exactly how i have felt at times.
i am now even more interested in seeing the movie for comparison value--the scenes i've seen in the commercials and previews are not in the book. noa makes a good point that there is a lot of getting with the program here sit down and lets psychoanalyze things, but this was 1967, a long time before prozac and psychobabble. and you are kept wondering somewhat what is really wrong with the narrator, the progression is not linear and certain explanations arrise toward the end of the book (while certain things are left wanting of explanation)
on a side note, a sweep accross the cover of psychology today reads: MOVIES: THE HOT NEW THERAPY! (i haven't read the article yet, but i'll let you know)
juniper
Posted by Noa on January 19, 2000, at 3:06:47
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by juniper on January 19, 2000, at 2:22:35
Intersting, Juniper. Yes, you could say the characters were a collection of "freaks", but that didn't bother me. It was pretty obvious they served a purpose, kind of like alter egos for the main character, or parts of her self, anyway. Ther is a clear reference to the Wizard of Oz in the film, and it does seem a bit like a coming-of-age/personal quest kind of story, Dorothy and companions on a journey, and yes, in the end, she finds out she had the power to go home all along (he role of Glinda the good witch seems to be shared by Whoopie Goldberg and Vanessa Redgrave). I think the "freakishness" of some of the characters also serves to convey the protagonist's confusion (and ours) about what the hell is wrong with her and why, and it certainly points to how fortunate she was because she wasn't burdened by pervasive injuries, mental or physical that would prevent her from moving on with her life.
Posted by eko on January 28, 2000, at 19:12:14
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by noa on January 17, 2000, at 16:37:42
I agree with Noa:
"there is something unsettling about the gestalt of the film, the big picture, how the essential conflicts are resolved."
Here's Why:
Overall I enjoyed the movie. Girl Interrupted is essentially a coming of age/ self-discovery story of one young girl (Wyona Ryder). The movie has a formula plot: Girl has problems, girl faces them and girl overcomes them. The girl's name is Susan. Susan's, problems are somewhat unique- she is institutionalized as a mental patient after an
attempted suicide and receives a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Taken on this level Girl Interrupted was a pretty decent, if somewhat generic, movie.But it can be taken as another type of story: the story of a mentally ill patient who is cured of her disease (by vanquishing her demons) and who returns triumphantly to society. This is one of very few movies, novels or TV programs that deal with mental illness as a disease. The Movie Industry seems to be infinitely more comfortable with diseases
like Cancers (about which there have been many movies, documentaries, made-for-TV-movies, television series, etc.) than those that deal with
mental problems- in fact, with the exception of "Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" I can't think of a single movie that deals with a struggle against mental illness.What does this lack of media coverage mean? I think Cancers just don't have the same kind of stigma that mental illnesses do. People have difficulty accepting that mental illnesses are caused by biological dysfunction in the brain the same way cancers are caused by cells that proliferate out of control. Often people assume that if someone is
clinically depressed he or she can simply "snap out of it" or that "his or her upbringing is too blame". This is a common myth- that major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and schizophrenia- are diseases of moral character and not of neurochemical and structural abnormalities of the brain. Science and Medicine have proven that myth wrong. Unfortunately, neither public opinion nor the people involved in making Girl Interrupted are caught up with contemporary science and medicine.The movie propagates the "just snap out of it myth" in many ways. First, it should be pointed out that the patients in the movie were strikingly normal. If you have ever observed a psychiatric ward of a hospital, you would undoubtedly note that some the patients behave strangely. People who suffer from certain mental illnesses, like OCD or schizophrenia, to the extent that they must be hospitalized inevitably have strange or abnormal behaviors that inhibit their functioning in society. The patients in Girl Interrupted, with perhaps the exception of the girl who hid chicken under her bed, were quite normal. I would describe their behavior as possibly eccentric but not abnormal. The character Angelina Jolie played only once did one thing I would call strange- she called
Susan by the name of Jamie, a patient who had previously committed suicide. So where are the really ill people? Or are we to believe that
mental illnesses were simply figments of the collective imaginations of people living in the psychedelic sixties? I happen to know the mentally
ill do exist (have always existed), and they suffer terribly. Girl Interrupted does not depict their suffering, in fact, it minimizes it and, cruelly, it invalidates it. Susan was able to simply "get better" once her nurse (Whoopi Goldberg) told her she was "being selfish and self-absorbed". In effect she "snapped out of it".So was this a story of a someone misdiagnosed and institutionalized inappropriately? Seems like it. Susan certainly didn't seem to be genuinely suffering (at least not more than the average teen turning adult) and the atmosphere of the hospital was more like summer camp than of a place where people were mentally ill and struggling. Girl Interrupted certainly does not portray the real life struggles (and they exist) of someone with a mental illness. So my question is: Where are the
inspiring movies of those who have suffered from mental illnesses and survived? Why are we so supportive of Cancer patients and why do we so
disregard the difficulties of those suffering from Major Depression?In my opinion, Girl Interrupted was certainly not an inspiring story of one girl's struggle with and victory over a mental illness. It's more a movie of a young girl coming of age which, taken on this level alone, was a kinda cute movie.
-EKO
Posted by Abby on January 28, 2000, at 19:57:48
In reply to Re: Movies--girl, interrupted, posted by eko on January 28, 2000, at 19:12:14
>
> The movie propagates the "just snap out of it myth" in many ways. First, it should be pointed out that the patients in the movie were strikingly normal. If you have ever observed a psychiatric ward of a hospital, you would undoubtedly note that some the patients behave strangely. People who suffer from certain mental illnesses, like OCD or schizophrenia, to the extent that they must be hospitalized inevitably have strange or abnormal behaviors that inhibit their functioning in society. The patients in Girl Interrupted, with perhaps the exception of the girl who hid chicken under her bed, were quite normal. I would describe their behavior as possibly eccentric but not abnormal. The character Angelina Jolie played only once did one thing I would call strange- she called
> Susan by the name of Jamie, a patient who had previously committed suicide. So where are the really ill people? Or are we to believe that
> mental illnesses were simply figments of the collective imaginations of people living in the psychedelic sixties? I happen to know the mentally
> ill do exist (have always existed), and they suffer terribly. Girl Interrupted does not depict their suffering, in fact, it minimizes it and, cruelly, it invalidates it. Susan was able to simply "get better" once her nurse (Whoopi Goldberg) told her she was "being selfish and self-absorbed". In effect she "snapped out of it".
>
> So was this a story of a someone misdiagnosed and institutionalized inappropriately? Seems like it. Susan certainly didn't seem to be genuinely suffering (at least not more than the average teen turning adult) and the atmosphere of the hospital was more like summer camp than of a place where people were mentally ill and struggling. Girl Interrupted certainly does not portray the real life struggles (and they exist) of someone with a mental illness. So my question is: Where are the
> inspiring movies of those who have suffered from mental illnesses and survived? Why are we so supportive of Cancer patients and why do we so
> disregard the difficulties of those suffering from Major Depression?
>
>A lot of upper middle-class people were hospitalized in the 60's for conditions we
would now probably treat on an outpatient basis with
Prozac or talking therapy.I'm pretty sure that Kaysen was depressed--she says she still gets that
way---but that she was also struggling with adolescence in a crazy time.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.