Portrayals of Schizophrenia

Guttersnipe

mortal ally
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Messages
1,571
Location
Cocagne
I am not quite schizophrenic, but I do suffer a similar condition known as schizoaffective disorder (bipolar subtype). I haven't had a psychotic episode in six years. The worst thing I can remember doing during my break was walking into a random neighbor's house to tell them that I had a psychic connection with my dog. I was never violent or malicious.

Why are people with mental illnesses (especially schizophrenes, etc.) so often portrayed as chaotic and aggressive?

Example: In the film The Dark Knight, Dent and Batman discover one of Joker's underlings who apparently has paranoid schizophrenia. While I think that the actor played the character well, Batman's admonishment against Dent antagonizing the man contains something disturbing to me. After telling Dent of the man's mental status, he adds, "--the kind of mind the Joker attracts." In reality, some people characterize the Joker of being psychotic rather than psychopathic.

In Joker, the most recent film, mental illness is, I suppose, portrayed more realistically, but I wonder if the illness is inseperable from the protagonist (if I can call him that)...Surely a sane man might go to the same lengths of revenge to counter his abuse?

And let's not forget that so many antagonists in slasher films have psychosis on some level.

So why is there so much fear or discomfort for people like me who wouldn't hurt a fly (so to speak)? Also, are there any characters in media who have schizophrenia but happen to be good?
 
Even back in the 1950s and 60s they would throw around "schizophrenia" quite a bit in movies.
I think bipolar has a better reputation since the old term "manic depressive" has been retired.
There was some talk about changing the label for schizophrenia as well-I think Japan uses a different term.
 
Well, by virtue of the characters you're mentioning, you are covering a MASSIVE swath of unrelated mental health conditions (of which I'm not qualified to speak about with any credibility--so, I'll speak on it from a layman's standpoint). In any case, mental health issues scare most people because of one thing...they don't understand them. The second reason is, the 'laymen's believed' detachment from or unrecognition of accepted societal standards by the afflicted individual, meaning, they are believed to not be in control of themselves..

Using your example of schizophrenia or (some other psychotic break), the uneducated person envisions a person with that condition as having ZERO touch with reality. Meaning, the afflicted individual is believed to be working off a totally different set of rules and standards SINCE they are believed to be out of touch with reality for everyone else. Because of that, it is surmised they'll react correctly for what is going on in their mind, but possibly contradictory to what is really happening. (E.g.: Schizophrenic Bob walks up to you and attacks, because he believes you're a monster intent on harming him).

Using a more common trend, antisocial personality disorders with a loss of empathy leaning toward sociopath or psychopath (nurture-nature). Unaffected criminal Bob, does what he does because he's a bad guy...he makes a conscious and deliberate choice to do whatever criminal things he chooses. That sounds bad right? He goes out of his way to CHOOSE to do those things...but, if he can choose to do bad, he can also choose not to.
Psychopath Bob, does his bad things because he doesn't know any better. He does not choose to do bad--or good--he simply does what he does. It does not even register with him WHY it would be wrong to chop someone up into pieces. To him (everyone else believes) he cannot even grasp why it would be wrong. If you explained it to him, it would make no sense--as though you're speaking nonsense. He might know if he does such he'll get in trouble, so might try to avoid that, yet he doesn't feel or even understand why the act itself is wrong.

None of that is saying 'that is how it is.' What I'm trying to point out is how the average person views such conditions. That loss of control or constraints we all abide by, is believed to be missing from them for one reason or another. More so, they cannot be reasoned with, you cannot point out why it's wrong because it will make no sense to them. They cannot be threatened or cajoled into doing anything different than what they believe.

That's why psychological/mental health conditions scare people. It's something they don't understand, yet more so, something they can't combat/fix/convince there is another way. So, they feel the person does not abide by the same limitations they do.

Lastly...because 'a few/some' people with various mental health issues, CAN be extremely dangerous. Being uneducated, everyone else is unable to tell the is from the isn't from the maybes. So, they select the safest course of action... no interaction. In a round about way that's actually a good thing. If they can't help, or can't cope with it, better for all concerned if they simply don't interact with the person.

Just an uneducated opinion guessing why folks respond as you suggest.

K2
 
There are some better portrayals of mental illness out there.

Stewart Foster does some good stuff for kids.
Eleanor Oliphant is fantastically well realised.
I’d love to see more nuanced depictions of mental illness - there’s no need to demonise those with such conditions.
 
Why are people with mental illnesses (especially schizophrenes, etc.) so often portrayed as chaotic and aggressive?
But you aren't asking about characters with mental illness (of which there are many); you are asking why violent antagonists are occasionally portrayed as having a type of mental illness that legitimately does have a connection to violent behavior.

Brad Pitt's character in Twelve Monkeys is likely schizophrenic, but is not violent - for instance. So it isn't that all schizophrenics are portrayed as violent, but that all violent characters that owe their proactive violence to mental health are likely to be schizophrenics compared to any other obviously symptomatic mental illness. (PTSD also has an association with violence, but not criminality in general. So the violence tends to be reactive and personal. Not so useful as a motivation for a criminal mastermind.)

And then there are the vast majority of violent antagonists that are not portrayed as mentally ill at all.

If you only look at violent fiction (action/thriller/horror), schizophrenia is going to be used as a motivation in a minority of antagonists only because there aren't a lot of other mental illnesses that are connected to violence. Body dysmorphia or agoraphobia have zero reasonable connection to violent behavior.


This question reminds me of the debate about pit bulls. The majority of pit bulls aren't dangerous, so it seems unfair to make policies about the breed based on the minority. But there are virtually zero collies that maim or kill people, so the pit bull breed is the one associated with violence. It feels unfair, but is the reality.


PS The Joker has never really been portrayed as being schizophrenic. He doesn't appear to have delusions or lack control of his motivations.
 
Last edited:
Violence is a shortcut that can easily be over done to make a connection between characters who have no real connection. Its right up there with using profanity to make a more "realistic" character. Its one of the things that happens when people imagine they know what they are writing when they are imagining what a character would do in a scene that the writer has already established in their mind what it is going to look like regardless of the reality of the situation.
 
In addition to the points raised above I think that for a lot of drama productions mental illness is often used as a motivator because of the same reasons that Nazis and Zombies are. It's a very easy and simple patch to use which has been used so often that the average audience viewer has a "film level" understanding of the concept without further need to explain.

It's much like how "Oh we swabbed him for DNA and found a DNA trace on the gun that we compared and they were the same - ergo he's guilty and we will arrest and send him to prison." Even though in reality DNA evidence is never/rarely so clean cut. Again its a fantasy that has been used so many times that the cinema world has created its own reality of understanding within the bulk of its audience.

It's a trope and like all its a gross simplification that allows them to create stories which fit their budget and time constraints.


For an evil/bad/violent/criminal/whatever character it gives an instant reasoning to their actions which can be covered in a few lines; whereas if you wanted to give them a deeper background it might take whole scenes, long flashbacks and development. Ergo it starts to eat up more and more of the films time. A film might have only 2 hours to complete things in; a TV episode might have 30mins.
 
As a former mental health nurse and cognitive behavioural therapist I can state with reasonable confidence that the chances that a violent person who attacks you has a psychiatric diagnosis are low, but not statistically zero.

Patients who become violent when unwell are a very small part of the mentally unwell population.

But, such patients who have a propensity to be violent are generally under the care of forensic services, because the risk of violence exists when the patient is well.
 
There are multiple types if schizophrenia:
... However in 2013 they decided to put them all under the umbrella of schizophrenia.

You are right about misconceptions, and I personally would say that in general they are dangerous mostly to themselves.
Many are functional. Many years ago there was a misconception that this was an illness that struck more women then men; however and at the same time the percentage of people diagnosed with schizophrenia was small enough that it was one of those under funded disorders. I believe that fear of public perception was partially responsible for under reporting of the disorder.

For instance. I grew up around a family that 6 children[4 boys 2 girls(this was well over 30 years ago)] by the time the girls reached their mid teens they were diagnosed and institutionalized. The boys were never diagnosed though seemed to show various levels of manic depressive disorder.
Eventually one of them committed suicide. Once again; they are dangerous mostly to themselves.

The disorder the OP is talking about.
Has been of concern to me because of what I would call the dicey-ness of diagnosis.

I work with someone who has a mood disorder[diagnosed]; however combining alcohol and prescription drugs and the misuse of both have recently caused him to show symptoms related to schizophrenia. Because of the abuse it could be overlooked as a drug interaction and side effect; however twenty years ago someone close to him(in a moment of frustration)mentioned that the man had based a business decision solely on the belief that god told him to do it. It ended up being a bad decision and the person who mentioned it had(immediately after hearing the man's reason)disassociated with the man. I've known the man longer than twenty years which is why I became interested in this disorder. I have no way of knowing if twenty years ago the man was also abusing drugs and alcohol or if this might have been a less defineable schizophrenic episode. If it was(and this is getting to my point in that the symptoms have been masked) then drugs; drug side effects or drug abuse; have masked the real problem. This raises the question of how many functional people diagnosed with mood disorder have worse problems that have gone undiagnosed or passed off as drug side effects.

The only other danger I would worry about is that a schizophrenic's antics could drive the people around them just a tad mad.

I think that psychosis is probably what my friend would best fall under; however the word psychosis seems to show up more as a diagnostic tool where schizophrenia might be more of a label. It might even be safe to say that they start from Psychosis try to figure out if it has a traceable origin- Drug; trauma; stress; chemical interaction and fall onto schizophrenia when the symptoms all match but have no diagnostically definable reason for being there.

Either way it would seem that anyone such as those depicted in the media that are dangerous would exhibit some other behavior that explains how they are able to plan out something and follow through. The real problem is that the best defense is the insanity plea which uses the psychosis as the culprit and that couples with a strong belief that we don't know what a person is capable of doing.

I recall being in court as a character witness to a friend who was accused of something I would never have thought he could do. The Judge-right before the court and everyone made fun of my statements with just that thought--we don't know what another person is capable of doing and that I was being naive. Of course that was after the prosecutor and my friends attorney talked him into a plea deal, so I guess at sentencing the judge has a lot of latitude to express his attitude.

I left out Psychopathy, which seems to be focused primarily on action of the individual during the psychosis and has its own element of concerns. One of those being that It might not be wise for the psychotic individual to try to judge his actions while under the psychosis. Psychopathy by definiton would make it difficult for the inflicted individual to recognize that their behaviour is too aggressive. Self diagnosis is not recommended.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to mention probably the single most positive schizophrenia depiction: A Beautiful Mind..
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Dan Jones Writing Discussion 6

Similar threads


Back
Top