You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Mental illness has been a major subject for film from the start, but efforts to show the healing process at work in a therapeutic relationship have been only partly successful (Gabbard and Gabbard, 1987; Schneider, 1985). Birdy , directed by Alan Parker, uses the film medium in a strikingly innovative way to demonstrate the healing power of unconscious communication.
Before proceeding with an analysis of Parker's accomplishment, I think a note is in order about the relative neglect of Birdy by psychoanalytic film critics. The major problem from the psychoanalyst's point of view is that the professional healer in the film, a psychiatrist, is an obstacle to the healing process rather than a facilitator of it.
The actual therapeutic relationship shown in the film involves a mental patient in a military hospital after the Vietnam war and a childhood friend. The friend, who has come home after being wounded in combat, is brought to the hospital to see if he can help the patient. The hospital is portrayed as a prison. The psychiatrist is a fat, sarcastic underachiever, a 50-year-old career officer still at the entry rank of major. He lacks both empathy and understanding.
The diversion of the therapeutic process from the psychiatrist to the friend of the patient has important advantages for the plot of the film. It is difficult enough to portray a long-term therapeutic relationship in the brief scenes of a film. In real life, the therapeutic setting is designed to reduce the drama of the relationship and expand the patient's feelings of constancy and confidence. The guiding principle of film construction is not faithfulness to clinical practice but sheer dramatic impact. If it is necessary to sacrifice clinical plausibility for the sake of the drama, the filmmaker will have to do it.