Mad to Be Normal
- 2017
- 1 घं 46 मि
IMDb रेटिंग
6.0/10
1.9 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंDuring the 1960s, a renegade Scottish psychiatrist courts controversy within his profession for his approach to the field, and for the unique community he creates for his patients to inhabit... सभी पढ़ेंDuring the 1960s, a renegade Scottish psychiatrist courts controversy within his profession for his approach to the field, and for the unique community he creates for his patients to inhabit.During the 1960s, a renegade Scottish psychiatrist courts controversy within his profession for his approach to the field, and for the unique community he creates for his patients to inhabit.
- पुरस्कार
- 2 जीत और कुल 1 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
Despite rd Laings many flaws he did nevertheless revolutionise the treatment of patients right across the medical spectrum, as someone that suffers from mental health issues I can assure you that the problems and dogmas Laing confronted - largely on his own, still persist today in the medical industry, but thankfully because of laings outside the box thinking it is far less pervasive, for instance i can see many of laings methods - namely treating patients with dignity in order to understand and effectively treat them, present in the field and treatment of autism, most modern and successful treatments of autism are all based on this principle, a principle that Laing pioneered and fought for. Laing definitely had his own demons and some of his eccentricities, lack of structure and awareness definitely lead to some patients being harmed , but considering he was a pioneer working mostly on his own - he was still very successful - especially when compared with his peers - who were later revealed - through experiments where they were the subjects- unknowingly - were unable to distinguish between the insane and the sane, in these experiments the leading psychiatrists in the most prominent psych wards in America admitted completely normal qualified psychiatrists and held them in psych wards against their will until they admitted they were insane, so the widespread harm that was being caused by the industry at the time was prevalent and almost guaranteed, laing was one of the first to publicly acknowledge this and had the courage to fight a constant uphill battle for most of his career. So Laing came out well ahead of his peers and at the very least should be acknowledged for dragging this field kicking and screaming into the 21st century, those that dispute his contributions need to take a hard look at the murky and well hidden history of psychiatry and I'm not partial to the hippy dippy anti authority attitudes that characterised this generation.
The movie was great, a contemplative and interesting biopic of a maverick pioneer, a fly on the wall docu drama without a Clear or structured narrative, although I did get a vague " Icarus flying to close to the sun theme" The acting is top notch from the all star cast, a well crafted and interesting film that I would recommend to anyone interested in psychology. 7/10.
Although I'm not sure how true this story is.
The movie was great, a contemplative and interesting biopic of a maverick pioneer, a fly on the wall docu drama without a Clear or structured narrative, although I did get a vague " Icarus flying to close to the sun theme" The acting is top notch from the all star cast, a well crafted and interesting film that I would recommend to anyone interested in psychology. 7/10.
Although I'm not sure how true this story is.
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.
(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.
When an excellent cast turn in strong performances - David Tennant, Elizabeth Moss and Gabriel Byrne are all outstanding in the lead roles - how can you end up with an unimpressive, unaffecting film? Can't be the subject matter - RD Laing was a fascinating, divisive, bold, brilliant, reckless public intellectual whose opinions and ideas about psychiatry and society challenged the established order of, well... everything.
I'm sorry to say responsibility for this mediocre, somewhat messy film lies with writer/director Robert Mullan. The dialogue is often cliched, the scenes poorly constructed and the direction oddly distant and static. All of which makes for a rather uninvolving experience, which is a great pity given the talent at his disposal not to mention the compelling story there to be told. There's simply no real point of view to get hold of.
Laing's work remains acutely controversial, genuinely reaching for something even he as a highly qualified practitioner with a highly original brain and skilled writer could not quite realise. There's an argument his deep insights were too far ahead of his time, but equally he might just have been so damaged, deluded and egocentric that he didn't care who or what got broken. Some of that is there in the film but despite the warm colour palette this exploration of a more interesting British counterpart to the likes of Timothy Leary and Arthur Janov fails to engage, and leaves you cold.
I'm sorry to say responsibility for this mediocre, somewhat messy film lies with writer/director Robert Mullan. The dialogue is often cliched, the scenes poorly constructed and the direction oddly distant and static. All of which makes for a rather uninvolving experience, which is a great pity given the talent at his disposal not to mention the compelling story there to be told. There's simply no real point of view to get hold of.
Laing's work remains acutely controversial, genuinely reaching for something even he as a highly qualified practitioner with a highly original brain and skilled writer could not quite realise. There's an argument his deep insights were too far ahead of his time, but equally he might just have been so damaged, deluded and egocentric that he didn't care who or what got broken. Some of that is there in the film but despite the warm colour palette this exploration of a more interesting British counterpart to the likes of Timothy Leary and Arthur Janov fails to engage, and leaves you cold.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाNearing the halfway point, Laing jokes with two of his daughters about his mother, who has made a doll, dressed it like Laing and named it "Ronald," and sticks pins in it, to give him a heart attack. Laing died of a heart attack in 1989.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Film '72: एपिसोड #46.3 (2017)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Mad to Be Normal?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Ah Bir Normal Olsam
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $81,725
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 46 मिनट
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें