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.

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.

The film is about the period in time when psychiatrist Ronald David Laing managed his home as a refuge for mentally ill patients. A firm believer against coercion, he allowed the people living there to express themselves naturally in a safe environment, while he and an assistant would listen and try to help, in the hope that their minds would heal themselves. His theories were very much against the general medical opinion so he has come to blows not only with the medical community, but with his bigoted neighbors who didn't approve of not normal people living around them.

In a way, that state of more or less open conflict with the world is what defines the title of the movie. If normal people behave like that, then you must be mad to want to belong with them. Every actor in this film (and check out the great cast) is acting really well and the mood of the movie, depressing as you might expect, is very well framed. Some people accused it of slow pacing, but if you think about it, you can't do a fast paced movie about mental illness. It is a slow and pain causing condition and the only way to understand it is to go slow.

I personally like David Tennant a lot, but I think he was even better cast. He is perfect as the foul mouthed Scottish hipster doctor battling the world for the sake of the patients in his very care. I liked that the movie didn't try to take a side. It very lightly presented Laing's theories then proceeded to show what they meant in practice: with some the results were great, although they didn't lead to healing so much as to less pain, with others the approach was insufficient, while the level of care he afforded his patients made a catastrophic mess of his personal life. The key to the argument is how can a mentally deficient patient decide what's the best course of action for him and how can anyone else prove their treatment is what the patient needed when it alters the very essence of a person's mind? Who would be the more entitled to make a decision? The patient before a treatment or the patient after it? Not to mention society at large, family and doctors, who also feel entitled to pieces of people's lives.

Bottom line: not a beautiful film, but one that makes you ask questions. It provides no answers of its own, though.

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.

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.