Caveat actor, Caveat emptor: Some notes on some hazards of Tinseltown teaching

Abstract

The use of films in teaching psychiatry and psychotherapy remains problematic for a number of reasons. The bulk of films are made for commercial reasons, not for educational purposes. Scientific truth is often overshadowed by narrative requirement in films. In most ‘mainstream’ cinema and ‘indie’ productions, diagnostic accuracy is still seriously compromised by narrative considerations. Clinical reality continues to be undermined and overridden by the need – as makers see it – to tell a powerful story in aid of huge box office receipts. Therapists in films are also often caricatures and caution must be employed in using cinema in real-time individual therapy.

Notes

Notes

1 Dr Susan Nicosia's excellent bibiography covers work in the field, as well as other material about psychiatry and cinema, see: http://faculty/dwc.edu/nicosia/moviesandmentalillnessbiography.htm

2 Strictu sensu, my definition encompasses studio heads, producers, directors, writers, editors, and various technical personnel. An anomalous assortment of studio honchos also contributes variably – and sometimes dubiously – to movie making.

3 The television series Treatment and The Sopranos have drawn praise for the supposed accuracy of their depiction of psychotherapy. Both series contain numerous, sometimes egregious errors in technique, including serious boundary violations. Dr Jennifer Melfi, Tony Soprano's analyst, began his treatment well, but gradually evolved into a typical Dr Wonderful stereotype – neurotic, divorced, a poor parent, inappropriately involved with a male patient.