Six Schizophrenic Brothers

If you've ever wondered about family life with twelve kids in the middle of Colorado in the '60s and '70s, Six Schizophrenic Brothers is for you. :) But it's less about the where and when than the what and why. It truly is a captivating story with plenty of angles and theories as to how it all unraveled. The Galvin family were brave in sharing their truth with the world and shedding light on a disease that's often misunderstood.

In terms of production, tho, the series is a bit sloppy. An obvious example is when the end credits roll before people are even done talking. (And if you're watching on Max at the default settings, you get prompted for the "Next Episode" and the window auto-exits full screen while you're still trying to make out the dialogue.) It can be frustrating, like going out to the theater and having the curtains close and lights come on before the final scene is over. What's the rush? Where are we going? Choppy editing like that limits the impact of an otherwise powerful tale. Some of the stylistic choices do the same. The Galvins' saga is presented almost like a horror flick, with brothers emerging from the shadows for their interviews as if they personify danger; as if they're monsters. The eerie vibe seems like an unnecessary jab at their poor health.

And while I don't want to over-analyze the script because these folks are trying to recall events of 50 years ago- which can't be easy- some of their claims don't line up. For one, they suggest Peter's (#10's) illness may have been triggered by seeing his father suffer a stroke, which "greatly diminished" Dad's ability to communicate/take care of himself and hospitalized him for "at least six months." But then they imply both parents are to blame for not taking care of Peter after he got sick. What was Dad supposed to do? Was he not bedridden himself? The timeline is a bit shifty like that. It's not that they're lying but they do play it loose with some details, making it tough to distinguish between exaggerated memory and objective fact. In short, I thought the series could have been tightened up in editing, style and script. Which is not to say others won't enjoy it because the subject is compelling. I just felt it had greater potential, oddly for the same reason: because the subject really is compelling.

-

As for my unsolicited, unprofessional view on their unfortunate story, I do wonder if the original source for all the mental illness wasn't the context itself: namely a single-income family with twelve blood brothers and sisters all living under the same roof. There's no textbook for how to deal with that in modern-day America. Indeed, the very first victim was the very first child- but only after all twelve were born. Seems like a clear red flag: this family's too big. Schizophrenia had never befallen their ancestors, nor has it yet appeared in any of their offspring. So it seems a safe bet that something about this *generation and this *environment spurred this *outcome. We can debate how they witnessed their dad's stroke, were abused by the priest, suffered head injuries playing sports, experimented with psychedelics, worked long hours in isolation... all as possible "triggers"- and the family does- but now we're drawing individual links to explain a group phenomenon. I'd be more inclined to look at the big picture, what with so many being supported by so few (no grandparents around either). For if the structural foundation is flawed, the home will be left more vulnerable to *any storm/trigger.

The fact that Mary (#12) is the only one who takes care of her sick brothers today reinforces that theory for me. The others seem not at all interested in holding up their end of the bargain. "We're not strong enough," they say, and that was tough to watch. I know the Galvins have endured a lifetime of trauma, but to abandon each other in their time of need is something else. It reflects a lack of empathy. After all, you hear the siblings use the word "fun" when they reminisce on their happiest times together- but never "love." Never. Their relationships seem linear and transactional to this day. So where is that rooted? Again, I'd say in a twelve-child household where everyone was used to competing for resources, attention and guidance. It affected them the same way then that it appears to affect them now- whether they're schizophrenic or not. Might this have simply been the case of too many people and no room for love?

Mary says early on that Mom and Dad wanted a large family for the sake of the Catholic Church. They felt it was their duty "to keep the faith going." It's an honorable pursuit and they're entitled to feel that way. But after all they went through and the tenor of their legacy, I can't help but think they might have been better served to prioritize child protection over wild procreation.

I'm not sure why there were so many negative reviews. I had no expectations going into it and that's probably why I really enjoyed the documentary and found the story engrossing and intriguing. If you go into it thinking there will be answers and it will be neatly tied up at the end, you won't get that. This documentary reflects real life... Messy and frequently you're left with more questions than answers.

The story of the family is paced well and gives a well rounded understanding from the start as it takes you through the heartbreaking decline and breaking apart of a beautiful and idyllic family life. The trauma this family experienced is horrendous and I found the story telling from those both with and without schizophrenia to be particularly interesting. Very well put together.

I found myself furious at some of the siblings, but in a family where trauma, emotional distancing and mental illness has been an issue, it really makes sense how divided and distant the siblings are and the various perspectives based on how they coped with all the madness. I found the ending particularly interesting with Mary's kids.

If you are interested in mental illness and the way it deeply effects and damages families, and are not thinking you will receive answers, than I think you will truly enjoy this documentary. Only negative was the editing that was poorly done with each episode cutting off with the streaming. You miss the the last minute of every episode.

I've been involved in psychology in some form for over 35 years, from my days as a psych major and grad student, working in direct care, and teaching AP Psychology in high school for decades. I have never heard of a single family so stricken by this cruelest of conditions, so the title alone intrigued me.

The story of an exceedingly large Irish-Catholic family, with 20 years separating the oldest and youngest of 12 kids, 10 boys, followed by 2 girls. Six of the boys developed schizophrenia, most fairly severely.

Lots of interviews with most of the non-schizophrenia siblings, giving a fairly detailed picture of family life. But despite having the legendary Dr. Daniel Weinberger as one of the main experts, the filmmakers used him too sparingly and without the depth he could have added. For a documentary about a disorder that can have such heterogenous clinical presentations - and a three-hour one, at that! - there was precious little information about the symptoms of the disorder aside from hallucinations and delusions.

The story of Galvin family is fascinating, but with a broader perspective on schizophrenia, I feel like this was a lost opportunity to educate the public.

The story is very fascinating, but the storytelling is weak confusing. The interviewer was not asking the obvious good questions.

The repetition of info was maddening. I swear they say the same thing like 5-6 times sometimes. The editing could have saved a lot of time for viewers. But I guess they stretch it out to make more money or something.

The attempt at drama, with showing each son's picture breaking was tacky. Not a lot more to say other than if you can ignore the general production, you'll be OK, which is why I didn give it a lower rating.

Not sure if the director is the editor and the producer or what, but it seems amateurish. It shows that almost anyone can do this work now, since the audience no longer seems to care. AI would do it about this good.

As anyone who was born before about 1975 and/or studied in the mental health field will find this all too familiar and heartbreaking to view- unfortunately our family has both aspects; born in '66 and a practicing psychologist for over three decades with a specialization in childhood trauma this series is terrifying.

We so easily forget how far we've come where mental health is concerned- the familiar rallying cry I hear these days is 'we need to bring back asylums!', but anyone younger than around 35 has no idea how horrific these facilities were. The conditions were absolutely horrific- often employed people who could have easily been patients, filth and grime covered everything, the permeating smell of urine/feces, overcrowding, people with things like Down Syndrome housed with schizophrenics, etc., and it's just impossible to describe how awful these places were. And as deplorable as it sounds, this was just the thinking and long-held belief that this was the best place for those with abnormal conditions or birth defects. But with the rampant conditions of abuse and/or neglect, in the 80s Reagan said 'nope, the federal government should not and cannot oversee this. Each state needs to handle its own population and care for those who are incapable of self care', and most states subsequently began closing them down with little to no alternative for parents/families. Eventually communities began creating somewhat viable alternatives for people with disabilities like Downs, Autism, CF (typically didn't survive childhood) etc., and those with things classified as dementia, melancholia, hysteria, could be held indefinitely. So it's no wonder that the family stood on business (so to speak) and refused permanent residency in an insane asylum.

What we now know are genetic traits and you are predisposed to being a schizophrenic, and in being one, you are incredibly likely to pass on to any offspring you may parent, is leaps and bounds ahead of even fifty years ago. When things like electroshock therapies, lobotomies (through the orbital into the brain) and awful medications like lithium (largely over-prescribed), metrazol (they honestly believed seizures would cure the 'insane'), blood letting, etc were finally done away with and useful medications began to come online, we began to see society become more comfortable caring for and living with those who suffer things like schizophrenia. But there's still so much we don't know/understand. Like how a patient who is progressing well with their current medication can suddenly begin relapsing, or medications that work very well can become ineffective and the psychosis can slowly seep back in. And even when their caregivers see it start to slip away, it's often increasingly difficult to convince the patient of the regression and get them in to their doctor for analysis.

I'm quite sure there's immeasurable damage done to these siblings by the behavior of their siblings (my heart absolutely breaks for Mary) and more that would be done today so mom wasn't shouldered with the complete care of her sons, but she did what she did because that's literally all that existed. She did a mostly good job of trying to care for them, and housing them in asylums may have been better for the family as a whole, but what's done is done and I sincerely hope these remaining children have solid resources that are employed regularly to help them cope with the residual trauma they're likely suffering.

A very well done documentary that shows us how far we've come and how far we have yet to go- if you or someone you love shows even the slightest symptoms, please seek help. Most often, the symptoms begin slowly and in adolescence, and exacerbate in the teens, spiraling from there. The key is to catch on before spiraling begins, and helping each other rather than ostracizing families.