Television series and movies are not only entertainment tools; they are also a reflection of society’s thinking. How psychological disorders are portrayed on screen directly impacts viewers’ understanding of illnesses and their attitudes toward mental health. At this point, there’s an important question we need to ask: What’s your message? In other words, what are these productions telling us about mental health issues? Is the goal truly based on understanding and making sense, or is it simply used for dramatic effect? Doesn’t television’s power also make it responsible? The impact of mass media, especially visual media, in shaping individuals’ thoughts has been the subject of extensive research. When it comes to conditions that are often stigmatized, such as mental disorders, media representations are not merely fictional; they also become carriers of social perception. These representations either reinforce misunderstanding and stigma or raise awareness. This is a responsibility. So, which examples represent what? And how accurately do we understand this? More importantly, what message are they trying to convey? How effective is the healing power of stories? Let’s look at it from this perspective:
Disorder or “Weirdness”?
In many TV series and movies, characters with psychiatric disorders are portrayed in extremes, either as “crazy,” “unstable,” “prone to violence,” or “genius.” For example, in Joker, is the character’s mental breakdown a sign of genuine psychopathology or a symbol of anti-systemic conflict? Does the audience feel sorry for the character, afraid, or both? This mixed emotional state demonstrates that the film doesn’t explicitly say anything but leaves a strong impression. And this chaotic impression is presented from a personal perspective. The emotion it evokes is unique and personal to each individual. In some cases, the audience’s empathy is intended to be revealed, while in others, this state can be overly romanticized and unconsciously exploited.
This romanticization problem stems from the “suffering but special” character archetype, which exploits the real struggles of individuals with mental illnesses as “artistic elements” for dramatic effect. This can create illusions about the audience’s connection to real life. Presenting psychological disorders as “character props” can lead to a tendency to trivialize real illnesses.
Lifelike representations are abundant, and there are many examples, both positive and negative. In recent years, some productions have taken a more realistic and responsible approach to psychological disorders. For example, the series Atypical addresses the experiences of a young person with autism spectrum disorder from a very sensitive and humane perspective. Such productions allow the audience not only to gain insight but also to empathize with these individuals. And this is a healthy empathic perspective. The inner voices of some characters remind many viewers of their own internal conflicts. In some stories, they not only depict illnesses but also reveal the complex inner worlds of the individuals experiencing them. Lifelike representations mirror us, and the healing power of stories is actually revealed. Do you remember a story where you used the phrase “the healing power of stories” while watching it?
What About the Danger of Stigma?
Inaccurate media representation of psychological disorders not only leads to a lack of information but also creates the danger of stigmatization. Stigma can foster exclusionary attitudes toward individuals in society. Many people may avoid seeking treatment, which in turn prevents early diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, the message conveyed to the audience is crucial: It’s not just what the message conveys, but how it’s presented makes a huge difference.
Should we consider the role of experts in productions?
Some productions involve psychologists, psychiatrists, or therapists, making the content more impactful and healthy. For example, 13 Reasons Why received significant criticism for its treatment of suicide in its first season. In its second season, more balanced language was used with the support of psychologists. This example demonstrates that the media is open to learning and that content can be made healthier with the support of mental health professionals.
Therapy scenes are also a crucial part of these representations. Sometimes, therapists are either caricatured or cast as “know-it-all saviors.” However, the real therapy process is much more complex, time-consuming, and requires collaboration. Accurately portraying these scenes is crucial for breaking down prejudices against therapy. It is important to emphasize that therapy is a supportive tool not only in times of crisis but also in the individual’s inner journey.
So, What’s Your Message to Me?
Every narrative we watch leaves a mark on us… The impact of the message given or received is directly related to how we are viewed from these two perspectives: the viewer and the producer. The media must take responsibility for the power it carries; but equally, we, the audience, must be aware of how we read and internalize this message.
The question “What’s Your Message to Me?” is not merely a statement of criticism. It’s also an invitation: a call to produce more sensitive productions, to watch more consciously, and to create a more open and compassionate space in social dialogue. Psychological disorders are not narrative elements; they are part of the real lives of real people. Every media content produced and consumed with this awareness is no longer just a means of entertainment; it can also become a source of social healing.
Now and Here! What’s Your Message to Me?