Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE WORLD OF film has held a long-lived fascination with mental disorders. They have been depicted in every genre of film, from horror (Psycho) to thriller (Shutter Island) to romantic comedy (As Good as it Gets). However, many depictions have been criticised for lacking in authenticity.
In addition, the treatment of mental disorders in film has been flagged as inaccurate. It is important to critically consider this, given the powerful impact film and media can have on our perceptions and attitudes.
Even media aimed at young children negatively portrays mental disorder. Characters with mental disorders in children’s films are often referred to as “nuts” or “crazy.” These characters are regularly presented as violent, aggressive, and fear inducing.
According to Professor Otto Wahl, “The image of persons with psychiatric disorders as unattractive, violent, and criminal … appears common in children’s media, and references to mental illnesses are typically used to disparage and ridicule.”
Having been an avid fan of Disney movies in my childhood, I was disappointed to realise that they bear some of the responsibility for these harmful representations. A 2004 study found that of 34 films produced by Disney between 1937 and 2001, 85 per cent contained verbal references to mental illness and 21 per cent of the main characters were referred to as mentally ill. Many of these characters served as objects of mockery or amusement.
Mental illness is also projected to children as something that can turn people into villains (102 Dalmatians begins with Cruella De Vil in a psychiatric ward). Hollywood films have also been condemned for presenting misleading information about particular disorders, most notably schizophrenia. For example, one could be forgiven for leaving a cinema screening of Me, Myself and Irene with the view that people with schizophrenia have split or multiple personalities (some of which are violent).
In response to A Beautiful Mind, Professor Anthony David of the Institute of Psychiatry (King’s College London) says, “Judging from the hundreds of accounts I have been given and hear every day, it is not like this. The hallucinations of schizophrenia are fragmented and disembodied, as are the delusions that sustain them.
“[A Beautiful Mind] manages to reinforce most of the enduring myths about severe mental illness, not least the link between genius and madness, the healing properties of the love of a good woman, and the brutality of some psychiatric treatments.”
Alongside inaccurate presentation of symptoms, the way in which treatment is represented in film has come under scrutiny. The portrayal of mental health professionals (particularly psychiatrists) has been flagged as inaccurate and unrealistic, with mental health professionals on the big screen often breaking ethical professional practice guidelines and codes of confidentiality.
This may be partially linked to negative perceptions of psychiatry. A 2010 report published on the stigmatisation of the discipline of psychiatry claimed, “The public image of psychiatrists is largely negative and based on insufficient knowledge about their training, expertise and purpose. For example, it is not widely known that psychiatrists are medical doctors, and the duration of their training is underestimated.”
Arguably, a more concerning issue, is that the presentation of treatment in film may influence the perceptions of vulnerable groups. A 2006 study in the Journal of Adolescence claimed that watching films depicting characters with mental illness who fail to receive help for their condition, may encourage ineffective coping strategies among depressed and suicidal youth, alongside “a greater tendency to believe that treatment for depression is ineffective.”
Of course, filmmakers are not strictly in the same business as psychologists or psychiatrists. Their job is to entertain and tell compelling stories and sometimes they distort and dramatise reality in order to accomplish this. But given the influential medium that cinema is, should the film industry have any responsibility to counter negative portrayals of mental illness?
Fortunately, it would seem the tide is turning. In Ireland, First Fortnight is a charity-based organisation with the expressed aim of challenging mental health prejudice through the creative arts. As part of their 2014 campaign, they instigated nationwide screening and post-show discussion of Silver Linings Playbook.
The film, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, has been praised as the film that finally saw Hollywood understand mental health problems. Director David O’Russell says the film was originally a gift for his son, Matthew, who has bipolar disorder. “I wanted to treat the characters as humanly as possible. I want people to feel the humanity of the characters.”
Cooper (who plays the lead role of a young man with bipolar disorder) was self-reportedly “ignorant” about mental health issues before this performance. He says, “It has certainly changed a lot in my life.” He believes the film is about “helping people understand that they’re not alone, that the thing they’re feeling, it probably has a name. It certainly has a treatment, and that treatment works.”
Cooper’s attitude reflects the advancement made by the movie industry in portraying mental illness in a more humane and nuanced light. The film made a break from the stereotypical depictions of the past, wherein individuals with mental illness are often catatonic and vegetative or psychopathic and violent.
By examining and depicting the characters in the community and family setting as opposed to an institutional one, the director allowed for a new level of empathic understanding to be facilitated; engaging the viewer to identify the truly human struggle of mental illness that has so often in the past been veiled by fear, ignorance and stigma.
Hopefully, this marks the beginning of a new era, where filmmakers work collaboratively with the mental health sector to bring this long-lived fascination with mental disorder into the future in a more realistic and compassionate light.
Louise Dolphin is currently completing a PhD in Psychology at University College Dublin. She researches youth mental health in Ireland. Louise has worked with Bodywhys (the Eating Disorder Association of Ireland) since 2010 and OCD Ireland since 2013. She writes a psychology column for the University Observer in UCD. Twitter @tinkerbellatrix
This article originally appeared in the University Obeserver
Follow Opinion & Insight on Twitter: @TJ_Opinions
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe the EU should have had a lawyer look at the contract before signing! Bit of legal advice maybe….?
@Peter B: The EU couldn’t deal with youth unemployment in Southern Europe, the debacle of the Greek economy, the migrant crisis, terrorism and brexit. I never thought for one second that they could deal with this. And the sad thing is we can’t even hold them accountable. What a sham!
@Crispy Brown: examples of who did deal expertly with those things for a bit of balance would be good, thanks
@Peter B: best reasonable effort doesn’t justify selling to the U.K. first and the U.K. factories are included in the contract as if part of the EU, the contract justifies the EU position.
@Crispy Brown: did you pop in here from the Torygraph?
@Peter B: clearly AZ have messed up here not the EU. They took over €300 million from the EU up front to start making it.
@J: after the UK had already made a deal
@Peter B: if you read the contract as now released you will see that Astra Zeneca hasn’t a leg to stand on. The Commission should go after them hard.
@Noj Nikrub: that doesn’t matter. Contract ms don’t work like that.
@Peter B: Absolutely. It is a classic longform contract that each side can interpret as they want. The EU might find judges that agree with their interpretation but it’s just as likely the judges would agree with the AZ interpretation. In any case by the time it would be resolved in a court case the Pandemic will be over or we’ll be dealing with the next one! EU does a great job proving the Tories right that it is too bureaucratic for its own good!
@Eugene Norman: leave eu more likely
@Noj Nikrub: irrelevant
@Noj Nikrub: That’s irrelevant. A contract is a contract. The date it was signed counts for nothing, it is the agreement it contains.
@Eugene Norman: again NO! The UK left the EU on 31st Jan 2020, before the contract was signed. They were not part of the EU since that date. During the transition period the UK was a third country already.
I foresee this debacle is AstraZeneca shooting themselves in the foot. Over a longer period of time, they will need the EU. Remember the EU is the largest trading block.
A business should never alienate a customer, and that is what AstraZeneca is doing.
The EU will find a way around this problem. It will take a bit longer, but they will find it. And AstraZeneca will pay in the long run, one way or another
@Bob Tallent: lol. EU mucked up. Simple. Now they are scrambling for excuses.
@Parked: no they didn’t
@Parked: how exactly?
There’s a long time saying in business that says the customer is always right. And I used to run a business training course called the Customer is King.
AstraZeneca is losing sight of a lot of business principles. Thats why I foresee them paying in the long term
@Parked: please tell us who isn’t keeping up to their legal responsibility in that contract?
@Bob Tallent: exactly
@Bob Tallent: this was one of the facts bounded about during Brexit, The EU is a dwindling economic power, it’s not going to be the biggest for long unless it changes.
No matter how often the European Commission keeps stressing that the argument is not with the Britain but with a private company, this is nonetheless like a gift for Boris Johnson, since it seems as though the commission is inadvertedly achieving the impossible: uniting Remain and Leave voters.
@Mick Tobin: Nobody cares what Johnson thinks anymore, not Leaver, not Remainer, he’s delivered a total mess, not quite an Eton mess but a very large mess, his days are numbered and everybody knows they’re putting the squeeze on AZ and this is the way for AZ to get out from under the Tory jackboot.
@Mick Tobin: the EU doesn’t care about Britain and its internal politics and why should it.
@Mick Tobin: but one has to wonder how 100k dead plays out in this unification under Boris?
Timing of the contract is pertinent. If UK was a part of the EU at the time, it is a reasonable interpretation to say EU includes the UK.
So it seems it amounts to a UK involved company thinking they get to keep the money and take their ball with them when they leave. The company has made a pandemic vaccine political and long term will pay the price. People generally don’t sign repeated contracts with individuals, companies, and governments that don’t live up to their end.
@Carol Oates: The contract explicitly had a provision that for manufacturing site purposes, the EU was to be interpreted to include the UK (5.4).
It doesn’t have a provision that “due to the transition period” (which you could argue implicitly terminated the provision on 1 January) and it doesn’t otherwise mention a time limit for when the provision ends.
@Gerard: It could be argued all right and should be argued in court. Negotiation has obiviously failed. It is very obivious the spirit of the contract was the company would make every effort to deliver and are not doing so. Countries need to know one way or another what is happening. If the UK government thinks supporting their stance will earn them any points in future negotiations with the EU or the company thinks making it an arguable contract will work to their favor in future, they are living in dreamland. Its the EUs fault for trusting them to live up to the spirit of the contract and actually make the best effort promised.
@Carol Oates: there’s no argument. It’s in the contract.
@Carol Oates: this won’t go to court. AZ will just have to find a way or face the consequences.
@Eugene Norman: There is an argument only to the point that anything can be argued, even if facts don’t support it. Whether AZ should argue it or can possibly find a winning argument is the question.
@Carol Oates: The UK left the EU on the 31 January 2020 after that was a transition period, there was nobody representing the UK in the EU after that date and they were not paying into the EU either.
@Carol Oates: this is the issue though, The UK left The EU on the 31st Jan 2020, so it wasn’t part of the EU when the contract was signed.
It seems pretty clear to me that the contract justifies the EU position. Best reasonable effort doesn’t mean you get to sell to another customer in preference. Any other contract they entered into is irrelevant to this one. The factories in the U.K. are considered to be part of the deal. Where are the mouth breathers who opine that this proves the U.K./AZ position coming from?
@Eugene Norman: best reasonable effort could however be subject to other agreements taking precedence…like a contract signed 3 months earlier.
@Joan Murray: no it couldn’t. That’s not the way contract law works. What’s signed when means nothing. If I sign a contract with a candle maker for 100 candles that he has guaranteed then he owes me 100 candles. A best effort clause would only apply if there was a shortage of candle wax or whatever. Privileging other clients doesn’t work.
@Eugene Norman: but in your analogy there was a shortage of candle wax. The production from the continental sites was not high enough to meet the best efforts?
Yesterday I was blaming the EU but it seems that AZ are at fault after all. The vaccines manufacturered in the UK should be part of the EU supply as per the contract. It’s an ugly row and hopefully it will get sorted out soon.
But the argument of AZ appears to be the UK ordered first, so that makes it priority, because of the “best effort provision”. If you can’t do it, you can’t do it, and so you have made your best effort. But if you CAN do it, it’s just you promised it to someone else first, and the contract doesn’t say you can do that, I don’t see how that’s “best effort”.
Otherwise best effort would just mean whatever the company wants it to mean based on their business priorities.
In any case, any legal arguments are probably beside the point, because it’ll end up being settled by politics, not law.
@Gerard: it’s clear AZ have signed contracts to deliver more than they can. The timing of the contract signing is irrelevant. There must be penalties built in for breach of contract which I assume is driving AZ’s decision on who to cut back on
@Gerard: of course you are right. If I ask a factory for 300 widgets by Q1, and there is a best effort clause it’s only a get out clause of they have manufacturing problems. Other clients are not my issue. Who signed first isn’t part of contract law either.
@Eugene Norman: well actually, earlier agreements do impact the enforcement of a contract. The UK contract could have priority, but it hasn’t been published
@Joan Murray: that would be a liability to the UK only.
It doesn’t impact other contracts without explicit reference because a party can’t agree to terms it doesn’t know about.
@Joan Murray: incorrect .. they would have had to reveal that .. also clause in contract saying no other agreements with third parties can supersede this contract
@Joan Murray: no they don’t John – not unless specified in the contract.
No matter what you are reading in the Tory press that just isn’t true and it couldn’t be true. If it were true then contracts would be worthless pieces of paper if you signed any provider with existing customers. Capitalism would collapse.
“So this contract we just signed guarantees 99.99% uptime”.
“Sure. Although of course our existing clients come first and you might get 50% or so since they get first dibs”.
What a mess us humans are in..
He said, she said, they said. If it wasn’t so serious, it would sound like petulant children having an argument.
@Deborah Blacoe: Eh, they’ve just published the contract to stop the hearsay
Ah I see our qualified journal.ie posters have not only qualifications in epidemiology, but now, EU contract law, remarkable.
@Ally Mc Culladgh: it’s hard to tell which side you are attacking here but contract law is pretty simple on the matter of when contracts are signed. It doesn’t matter unless it’s specified in the contract itself.
@Eugene Norman: please explain how contract law is simple. It is infact extremely complex. Also different countries have different laws. This one comes under Belgium law. So please enlighten us all on the simplicity of contract laws in Belgium
No-one has seen the contract signed with the UK…. maybe they have a cast iron contract to guarantee delivery, which pre dates the EU contract and therefore has precedence. Ireland and any other EU country could have opted not to wait while the EU bureaucrats dithered over signing a contract in the first place Hungary has gone this route, despite being tut-tutted at – though I am not sure I would want to rely on the Russian vaccine. we could be well on our way to having all the most vulnerable vaccinated by now. And, the EU still hasn’t approved the Oxford vaccine, and looks like it won’t be approved for over 65s in any event. This is what happens with decision making in a bureaucracy.
@Joan Murray: you (EU) can’t have been considered to have accepted a provision in a contract (the UK one) that you haven’t seen.
Either it says “we have other priorities” in the EU contract, and lists what those are and what their terms are, or they are irrelevant
@Joan Murray: that’s like saying, “I agreed to pay my mortgage, but I promised I’d repay money I borrowed from a friend as a priority.”
Your friend has every right to expect you to pay them first, since you promised them that. But the bank doesn’t need to care — they didn’t agree you could pay your friend first.
@Gerard: good analogy.
An article in Spectator Magazine headed EU does not understand contract law publishes clause in contract between Commission and Curevac (german suppliers) by which curevac undertakes to use its best reasonable endeavours to make available by end of April vacines for member states having regard to it commitment under other order (to germany direct) No doubt contract with Pfeizer contains same clause .
the contract between the commission and curevac is dependent on the agreement between member states and commission to purchase thru block scheme with a freedom to opt out.
No wonder govt cant be sure when there will be easing of restrictions if this is contract for supply of vacine govt is relying on A contract that allows suppliers fulfill commitment to other orders. TD have not mentioned any of this either .
@Mary Ward: The Spectator is heavily partisan (Tory).
Which doesn’t make it false, but where something is in dispute, it’s always going to be the pro-UK pro-Tory slant.
@Mary Ward: that’s not this contract which doesn’t mention prior commitment
@Mary Ward: the spectator is virulently anti EU so no surprise there.
All animals are equal
But some animals are
More equal than others!
The cracks are widening as I see it with national divisions widening at an EU level…
@Jim: I see no divisions. Except with the U.K.
@Jim: the only cracks I see are in AZ’s position. I heard L.O’Neill on a weiner last night wonder out loud why Oxford has chosen AZ as partner. They have no track record in vaccines which involves a complex process whereas companies like Pfizer and J andJ do.
@Brendan Greene: webinar
@Brendan Greene: “why AZ?” Simple, Oxford Uni we’re going to work with Merck in Germany, but the UK Gov said no, we’ll fund it but you have to have the manufacturing in The UK, so they changed to AZ.
If the Eu are so bothered about the contract then they should publish it un redacted….
@Eddie Michael: Astra published it after the European threatened to so . Interestingly the page showing the definition of cost was completely redacted by Astra
Does AZ not realise the EU could chew them pieces over this. Any contract they had with the UK, if not mentioned and agreed to in the EU contract, means absolutely nothing.
@Pádraic Ó Braonáin: that is probably the most s… tupid statement I have read …. we are the EU, do as we say.
@Hugh Fogerty: No Hugh, do as you said you will do in the contract.
Remarkable how much anti EU and pro Brexit sentiment on this board. It’s clearly not reflective of reality. I suppose if you spend a lot of time online as an English speaker the British produce a lot of output.
Also the misunderstanding of contract law is comical.
Holy schit how bad has all of this been handled. If the anti eu crowd needed a spark here it is.
The EU have just authorized its use so it seems reasonable to deliver to countries that authorized it first.
As it only works for 60% of cases, the EU should try to use better alternatives if possible.
@Tom Mullally: but keeps nearly 100% out of hospital as after getting the 2nd dose as they only get mild symptoms
What’s the point in publishing it if it’s heavily redacted.
The article is incorrect in its stipulation of the position of The UK at the time the contract was signed: The UK left The EU on the 31st Jan 2020. When this contract was signed The UK had already left The EU!
You do realise astrazeneca is Swedish and UK business with its main offices in Sweden 5000 employees . So are they going to punish Sweden. The EU showed its true colours by trying to bring in article 16 but backed down. They could try to go through the courts which will take years and the EU would probably lose. They should try diplomacy instead of bullying tactics like they have used on Ireland and Greece
Actually you are incorrect the contract was signed on the 27th of August 2020
have your say