Mad to Be Normal

There is a scene in this movie where a Psychiatrist is being interviewed about electroconvulsive therapy, where he admits that they simply don't know why it works....but it does.

(This statement that it does work in directly contradicted in the movie by someone who experienced it and stated that actually it stopped his recovery).

The point is that the fact the practitioners openly say they don't know what it is they are doing is the single most important aspect of this movie.

Unfortunately this element is simply not explored in anywhere near enough depth.

Far more time is spent on the romantic relationship which develops with one of R D Laings fans.

Its one thing trying to make people interested in a real life person on screen by focusing on his relationships, however that is not what he is known for.

The other very important part of this movie which does not get enough time is around diagnosis, while lip service is paid to the idea that psychiatrists diagnose on the basis of "symptoms they cannot see", this aspect of mental health is also only briefly mentioned.

I feel that this was a wasted opportunity to bring up some real issues in mental health treatment that the public are unaware of and does not explore the harm which some treatments have on patients.

Due to the focus on romantic relationships, overall the film seems to drag out and nothing is really learned about the idea of R D Laing in any real depth.

Neither are the counter arguments to his ideas explored.

If you have any experience of the mental health system, you may came away from this feeling frustrated that an opportunity to expose the shortcomings of mental health treatment in the UK has been missed.

The sad part is that despite there being more years on the clock, psychiatry and mental health treatment has not really moved on. So the closing credits about the hospital experiment ending but "some" of his ideas still being around is another cop out.

There is a great film to be made about the state of mental health treatment which critiques its current failings, but this isn't it.

David Tennant plays psychologist R. D. Laing in the late 1960s, when his public exposure, due to his advocacy of LSD in therapy, was at its peak. Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon, and Gabriel Byrne support him.

The movie portrays him as overworked, compassionate, and occasionally overcome by the sense that he was supposed to take care of everyone, but who was to take care of him? With that cast, you can expect and do get some fine performances, but what might have turned into slightly amped shows up with a far more cinematic twist, starting with Tennant's rock-star entrance. Cameraman Ali Asad avoids tight close-ups, lending context but avoiding intimacy. This seems contrary to Laing's methods, but does emphasize his sense of alienation, both from the more standard drug-them-until-they're-no-trouble model as portrayed here, and his sense of loneliness.

Set in the 1960's, the film centers on the rather revolutionary psychiatric treatments of the time conducted by Dr. R. D. Laing. David Tennant stars as Laing, who was strongly opposed to accepted treatments such as electroshock therapy and tranquilizers for mental illness ,believing more in non-drug (except for LSD) and more natural therapies. Most of Laing's work took place at Kingsley Hall, between 1965 to 1970 in East London.

Elisabeth Moss co-stars here as Angie Wood, a graduate student at Columbia, who while attending one of Laing's lectures is completely taken in by his charismatic persona and they will soon begin a relationship. There's a most solid cast in the movie, including Gabriel Byrne and Michael Gambon.

Unfortunately, the film itself despite its fine cast, became a real slog for me to stay with, with its very deliberate pacing and quite depressive tone. Also, for whatever reason I wasn't able to really connect with the characters as presented.

Overall, I thought this drama had some quite interesting aspects to it, but I was not able to emotionally connect with the characters here , and combined with the other factors as mentioned, I can't say it was entertaining.

In the 60's a revolutionary treatment for mental illness was tried. A psychiatrist set up a place for mentally ill patients to live without medication or electric shock. They were left alone to freely act out their delusions & madness. Of course they weren't allowed to inflict harm on themselves or to each other. The doctor lived at the center with them. They each had their own room but were monitored 24/7 around the clock. If it appeared no progress was being made by letting them work through their stuff on their own LSD was offered. A couple of drops on their tongue would be administered but only with the patients permission. This movie tries to tell me that this was a neat-o experiment without any overwhelming problems but I'm sure in real life situations occurred that were not shown in the movie.

Mad, liberating 60's. Peace, love, sex, grass, time of hope for a different world, the hope long extinguished and barely remembered. Here comes Dr. Laing, the reformer, trying to change the cruelty of mental health treatment. Or to be precise the maltreatment. Treatment would presume decisions that benefit the patient, the maltreatment was perpetuated to make it easier on society to remove the suffering mental patients from public eye and concern. In this jerky, meandering flick Dr. Laing comes off as a troubled man who could have used some TLC himself. Sadly, we still don't know what to do with mental illness, apart from medicating. Fifty plus years later we are overdue for a new Dr. Laing, perhaps one with less personal baggage, thus harder to dismiss and remove.