Left Voice
26th July 2014, 01:46
I just finished watching this film and while I enjoyed it overall, I have been left somewhat confused about its overall message.
While it would be churlish to dismiss mental health care as inherently reactionary (especially in cases where care is needed, can actually be provided, or is actively sought), its fair to say that the protagonist of this films was not a person of this category. She seemed to be merely a person who actively opposed established norms and sensibilities. Indeed, it was set in the late 60s when paranoia about anything that defied the established social norms was rife. While it suggests that she was committed due to an attempted suicide, that does not appear to be the reason for her continued presence in the hospital. The hospital seemed to be trying to turn her into a 'normal person' who would pursue a normal life, and she understandably rebelled against such reactionary intentions.
It seemed to raise interesting questions about what normality is. Who decides if somebody is not normal? Is anybody opposes established social sensibilities 'abnormal'? Is the role of mental health care to mould people into good, docile citizens? The protagonist seemed to be unable to leave until she followed the hospital's procedures like a good girl, told them what they wanted so they'd leave her alone. I think a scene in the film describes a guy who was committed because he claimed to see 'purple people'. They let him because he told them he no longer saw the purple people. He still did, but he just told them what they wanted to hear. Interesting point about exactly what the intent of 'rehabilitation' is in such circumstances when their illness is essentially a 'thought crime'.
And yet, the movie seemed to conclude in a manner that betrays this point. Basically concluding that she's a 'spoilt little girl', she is rehabilitated into society once she essentially accepts society's norms, gets sensible employment, lives up to her bourgeois parents expectation and abandons her contradictions with society.
I understand that the movie is based on an autobiographical book so there may not necessarily be an overarching point behind the film, but the overall conclusion of the film doesn't sit well with me after the interesting points that it attempts to raise.
Thoughts? Especially from those a little more informed about mental health care than I.
While it would be churlish to dismiss mental health care as inherently reactionary (especially in cases where care is needed, can actually be provided, or is actively sought), its fair to say that the protagonist of this films was not a person of this category. She seemed to be merely a person who actively opposed established norms and sensibilities. Indeed, it was set in the late 60s when paranoia about anything that defied the established social norms was rife. While it suggests that she was committed due to an attempted suicide, that does not appear to be the reason for her continued presence in the hospital. The hospital seemed to be trying to turn her into a 'normal person' who would pursue a normal life, and she understandably rebelled against such reactionary intentions.
It seemed to raise interesting questions about what normality is. Who decides if somebody is not normal? Is anybody opposes established social sensibilities 'abnormal'? Is the role of mental health care to mould people into good, docile citizens? The protagonist seemed to be unable to leave until she followed the hospital's procedures like a good girl, told them what they wanted so they'd leave her alone. I think a scene in the film describes a guy who was committed because he claimed to see 'purple people'. They let him because he told them he no longer saw the purple people. He still did, but he just told them what they wanted to hear. Interesting point about exactly what the intent of 'rehabilitation' is in such circumstances when their illness is essentially a 'thought crime'.
And yet, the movie seemed to conclude in a manner that betrays this point. Basically concluding that she's a 'spoilt little girl', she is rehabilitated into society once she essentially accepts society's norms, gets sensible employment, lives up to her bourgeois parents expectation and abandons her contradictions with society.
I understand that the movie is based on an autobiographical book so there may not necessarily be an overarching point behind the film, but the overall conclusion of the film doesn't sit well with me after the interesting points that it attempts to raise.
Thoughts? Especially from those a little more informed about mental health care than I.