With respect to film making and psychology, there is a big difference especially between the filmmakers and the psychiatric. The filmmakers have a compelling responsibility of creating catchy and theatrical stories that may be full of inaccuracies and distortions of the real situations of events for the accomplishment of the end goals. This paper seeks to explain how the film and the playbook by Russell provide a challenge to the traditional cinematic depictions of mental illness. The playbook by Russell has a bit by bit explanation with fair accuracy several elements that have connections to mental illness without prejudice against the mental illness victims, in an intricate and truly, in the artistic spirit and manner, which benefited the audience as well (Nadel amp. Negra, 2014). Traditionally, mental illness in the films and cinemas has been subject to depiction as a social evil. According to Forman (2013), this description of social evil comes from the portrayal of the mental illness patients as prospective criminals and causes of disturbance of social peace and cohesiveness. These traditional depictions of mental illness have been creating a very grim picture of the mental illness and seemingly an attitude of looking down upon the mental illness patients. Mental illness patients have long been associated with extreme levels of violence an insensitive perspective that Russell’s play has disengaged from the viewpoints of people. Facio and Lara (2014) assert that the depictions of mental illness in the movies have caused the emergence of stigma against mental illness patients. Therefore, the movies shed light on the issues of human rationality and morality, which differ from different films and real-life circumstances. Mental illness in this light when looked at positively can bring forth positive changes in human perspectives and societal interactions.
Films versus Cinematic Representations of Mental Illness