Atrangi Re, which was released on Hotstar last month, is about Rinku, a woman engaged to Vishu but in love with Sajjad. As the plot progresses, it is revealed that Sajjad does not exist and is a figment of Rinku’s imagination. Vishu and his friend, a psychiatrist, theorize that this delusion is the result of Rinku’s trauma from witnessing her parents’ murder. They conclude that Sajjad could be the manifestation of her father, since he shows up whenever she is most vulnerable and in need of protection. To ‘help’ her, they medicate her without her knowledge. In a flashback, the theory that Sajjad is a manifestation of Rinku’s father is proven to be correct. Eventually Rinku realizes this, is ‘cured’ and marries Vishu after letting go of her paracosm and Sajjad.
Also read: How a Midday Walk Can Be a Much-Needed Stress Buster
The film sheds light on mental health disorders, treatment and recovery, but experts believe that all of these aspects have not been portrayed sensitively and that there have also been cases of misinformation. We spoke with some renowned psychologists to understand what went wrong and what filmmakers need to do to properly portray mental health.
Building unhealthy stereotypes
The consensus of most therapists is that there has been a huge misrepresentation of mental health in the film on a broader level. However, what has been truly insensitive is the representation of the patient. Shevantika Nanda, a consulting psychologist from Gurgaon who recently saw the film, notes that while the filmmakers may have been trying to portray mental illness with sensitivity, they fell prey to what sells in Indian cinema, “the comedy and the stories of love”. . In his opinion, there are many areas in the film that are problematic from a mental health point of view. To begin with, the psychiatrist comically asks to be reassured whether or not other people can see Sajjad. As a psychiatrist, he probably should have been better off realizing what was going on in the first place. When he goes to Vishu to explain the situation, he says that Rinku belongs in a museum and shouldn’t roam the streets. Aren’t these the exact stereotypes we’ve been working hard to get away from?” she says.
Tanu Choksi, Associate Fellow and Supervisor in RE-CBT at The Albert Ellis Institute, New York, echoes this view. Choksi points out that there has been an inaccurate portrayal of the treatment process where the psychiatrist belittles Rinku and treats her without her consent. Also, the others treat her like a show. “The narrative, in my opinion, shows a certain lack of awareness towards mental disorders and childhood traumas,” he says. He adds that the psychiatrist also suggests that all his patients have the same hallucinations. “While there are some standard things that schizophrenics can hallucinate, they don’t share the same delusions just because they have the same disorder,” he says. He also points out that in the behavior of this psychiatrist there is also an undertone of sexism, “he says he knows women and their behavior only because of his profession.”
Misrepresentation of the treatment process.
Regarding the treatment process shown in the film, Nanda says, “Psychiatric medication doesn’t start working right away; it takes several weeks or months to be effective. Trauma is very complex and nuanced, and it’s unlikely that psychosis resulting from childhood trauma resolves simply by taking a pill. The portrayal of trauma manifestation weakening with each pill is dangerous as it leads to unrealistic expectations of recovery if people were to receive mental health support.”
Choksi points out another flaw in how the treatment process is shown: the psychiatrist immediately diagnoses the protagonist. “This does not reflect the true process, which takes time, and includes taking the patient’s history, talking to him in detail, doing some tests and finally diagnosing. An immediate diagnosis could lead to errors and misjudgments, which in turn could further harm the person,” he clarifies.
Also read: How do you help your child cope with eco-anxiety?
Hansika Kapoor, a clinical psychologist and research author at Monk Prayogshala, Mumbai, agrees. His concerns are mainly associated with the representation of the resolution of the mental disorder and the different treatment modalities to address it. She opines, “I understand that this is a fictional depiction of mental illness and therefore should progress in a linear fashion (with an ‘end’), but it could mislead people about an actual recovery process (which often includes “ups and downs”). )”. She reveals that, in most cases, addressing mental health issues requires sufficient buy-in from clients themselves, who must want change. Similarly, the mental illness portrayed in the film is severe (active psychosis), while most mental health disorders are more common (such as anxiety and major depression),” he concludes.
The need for a realistic representation
Although the cinema must be entertaining and, therefore, the use of comic relief and fiction is necessary, the psychiatric community points out that it cannot be a source of misinformation. It can be extremely damaging when the fictional narrative gives totally wrong ideas about the profession and therapeutic results. Anshuma Kshetrapal, a Delhi-based psychotherapist and drama and movement therapist, echoes this sentiment when she says, “A lot of mental health issues and therapeutic processes are portrayed as comic relief, which I find very strange. I’ve seen Bollywood uses doctors for comic relief, and that’s not dangerous since the masses know how useful doctors can be and believe in the profession. In therapy, we haven’t gotten there yet and there’s no reality to hold on to. So fiction becomes reality. So filmmakers need to show reality and then have comic relief around it so people don’t base their understanding on misinterpretation.”
Nanda agrees with Kshetrapal, noting that there have been many instances where “wacky” characters were introduced to provide comic relief in films. “The portrayal of mental illness was done largely from the perspective of providing entertainment, without reflecting on how the portrayal can contribute to a lack of understanding and empathy, and instead increase the stigma around mental health,” observe. Choksi agrees that the dangers of disinformation for the general public are immense. “As storytellers, I think filmmakers have a certain responsibility when it comes to delivering information and messages. Villainizing people with disorders or ridiculing them (which, to a certain extent, ‘Atrangi Re does) perpetuates pre-existing taboos around these topics. “. she says.
Also read: Twelve ways to build a great support system
.
