Arpita Ghosh
Over
the 19th and 20th centuries, the healthcare system was
changing, especially for women in the United States (Reed,1992). Standards of ‘health’ and ‘normality’ depended
not just on the social and historical context in which individuals lived, but
also on their gender. This blogpost aims to analyze the movie, ‘Frances’
(1982) directed by Graeme Clifford, which portrays the life of Frances Farmer,
a Hollywood actress in the 1940s, shedding light on how mental illness was
historically defined, inhumanely ‘cured’ and used as a tool to suppress women
who dared to be different.
The movie begins with 16-year-old Frances writing an essay about her disbelief in God. Her ‘anti-deity’ essay won her an award but gave rise to controversial debates against her. She began her acting career in Seattle and soon got an opportunity to learn theatre in Moscow. Her mother, opposed to Communist parties, was completely unsupportive of her going there. Frances’ decision to go to Moscow gave rise to a national uproar because society believed that she had made a ‘politically incorrect’ choice. Frances was therefore considered to be a ‘societal misfit’, for being a non-conformist and a ‘non-ideal’ woman (Reel, 1992).
Frances demonstrated ‘masculine’ behavior in a society that ascribed those characteristics to an ‘unhealthy’ or a ‘sick’ woman (Reel, 1992). Diagnosis of mental illness in her time was done from an androcentric perspective. Research done by Broverman et al. (1972) showed the existence of the stereotypical definition of ‘healthy’ men and ‘healthy’ women. Mental health clinicians defined ‘healthy men’ as being independent, rational, and ambitious, while, ‘healthy’ women were defined as being submissive, emotional, and dependent (Broverman et al., 1972). The movie demonstrates this by highlighting the agency of societal control and normative gender roles in defining mental illness and determining its treatment.
The movie begins with 16-year-old Frances writing an essay about her disbelief in God. Her ‘anti-deity’ essay won her an award but gave rise to controversial debates against her. She began her acting career in Seattle and soon got an opportunity to learn theatre in Moscow. Her mother, opposed to Communist parties, was completely unsupportive of her going there. Frances’ decision to go to Moscow gave rise to a national uproar because society believed that she had made a ‘politically incorrect’ choice. Frances was therefore considered to be a ‘societal misfit’, for being a non-conformist and a ‘non-ideal’ woman (Reel, 1992).
Frances demonstrated ‘masculine’ behavior in a society that ascribed those characteristics to an ‘unhealthy’ or a ‘sick’ woman (Reel, 1992). Diagnosis of mental illness in her time was done from an androcentric perspective. Research done by Broverman et al. (1972) showed the existence of the stereotypical definition of ‘healthy’ men and ‘healthy’ women. Mental health clinicians defined ‘healthy men’ as being independent, rational, and ambitious, while, ‘healthy’ women were defined as being submissive, emotional, and dependent (Broverman et al., 1972). The movie demonstrates this by highlighting the agency of societal control and normative gender roles in defining mental illness and determining its treatment.
The mental healthcare system of Frances’ time was used as a powerful weapon to oppress women deviating from socio-cultural norms. The movie shows that after failed relationships, and societal rejection, Frances engages in self-destructive behavior, which leads to her eventual institutionalization. There was a scene where Frances physically injured her hairdresser in the heat of an argument. This led to several legal procedures, and her being perceived as a ‘mad woman’. Her mother, frustrated with her unacceptable behavior, forcefully admitted her to mental-asylums. Such forceful admission of women, by their family members, stripping them off their power, was common in the 19th century (Sigurðardóttir, 2013). Admission to some asylums did not require proof of their mental instability. Evidence suggests that women were often admitted for questionable reasons like the use of abusive language (Sigurðardóttir, 2013).
Female
assertiveness was viewed as ‘madness’ in the 19th century. New
diagnoses attributed especially to women were established at that time, the
most common one being hysteria (Sigurðardóttir, 2013) Independent and opinionated
women like Frances were diagnosed with hysteria as it served as “…a dramatic
medical metaphor for everything that men found mysterious and unmanageable in the
opposite sex.” (Micale, 1989). Women who tried to express their opinions
received opposition from “medical institutions that specialized in nervous and
mental illness.” (Sigurðardóttir, 2013).
The movie shows the horrific picture of asylums that prevailed historically. Psychiatric institutions of the nineteenth century were male-dominated, and patients were treated cruelly (Sigurðardóttir, 2013). There are several scenes in which male attendants use physical restraint on Frances during her ‘treatment’. During the 1930s and 1940s experimentalizing on patients in the asylums was prevalent (Loukides, 1996). It was during this time that Frances was repeatedly institutionalized. She was the victim of the inhumane treatment in the asylums starting from insulin shock therapy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and cold water baths. These treatments were thought of as ‘remedies’ to transform her into a ‘healthy’ woman (Reed, 1992). There were many absurd treatments for hysteria used in the mid-19th century, like the recommendation to keep the patient away from their family, use of drugs like opiates, and bloodletting (Brousslle, 2014). The movie also shows Frances being raped in the asylum, several times by inmates, attendants, and soldiers of a nearby army base. Although graphic, these scenes disclose the truth about the sexual assaults that took place in asylums then and continue to take place today (Rodgers, 2014).
The movie portrayed Frances undergoing transorbital lobotomy, which “involved the manipulation of a pointed instrument resembling an ice pick driven with a mallet through the thin bony wall of the eye socket and into the prefrontal brain” (APA, 2020). The surgeon in the movie explained how it cured mental illnesses by leading to loss of creativity and flattening of emotions. At the end of the movie, Frances appears in a television show looking not like herself—detached and subdued. The movie perhaps tried to show how the surgery ‘cured’ her by ‘restoring her lost femininity’ (Reed, 1992). This psychosurgery was initiated in 1946 by Walter Freeman to cure several mental illnesses (BBC, 2021). He claimed this surgery to have a success rate of 85% when in reality, only one-third of the patients showed improvement (BBC, 2021).
References
The movie shows the horrific picture of asylums that prevailed historically. Psychiatric institutions of the nineteenth century were male-dominated, and patients were treated cruelly (Sigurðardóttir, 2013). There are several scenes in which male attendants use physical restraint on Frances during her ‘treatment’. During the 1930s and 1940s experimentalizing on patients in the asylums was prevalent (Loukides, 1996). It was during this time that Frances was repeatedly institutionalized. She was the victim of the inhumane treatment in the asylums starting from insulin shock therapy, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and cold water baths. These treatments were thought of as ‘remedies’ to transform her into a ‘healthy’ woman (Reed, 1992). There were many absurd treatments for hysteria used in the mid-19th century, like the recommendation to keep the patient away from their family, use of drugs like opiates, and bloodletting (Brousslle, 2014). The movie also shows Frances being raped in the asylum, several times by inmates, attendants, and soldiers of a nearby army base. Although graphic, these scenes disclose the truth about the sexual assaults that took place in asylums then and continue to take place today (Rodgers, 2014).
The movie portrayed Frances undergoing transorbital lobotomy, which “involved the manipulation of a pointed instrument resembling an ice pick driven with a mallet through the thin bony wall of the eye socket and into the prefrontal brain” (APA, 2020). The surgeon in the movie explained how it cured mental illnesses by leading to loss of creativity and flattening of emotions. At the end of the movie, Frances appears in a television show looking not like herself—detached and subdued. The movie perhaps tried to show how the surgery ‘cured’ her by ‘restoring her lost femininity’ (Reed, 1992). This psychosurgery was initiated in 1946 by Walter Freeman to cure several mental illnesses (BBC, 2021). He claimed this surgery to have a success rate of 85% when in reality, only one-third of the patients showed improvement (BBC, 2021).
References
American
Psychological Association. (2020). APA Dictionary of Psychology.
American Psychological Association. Retrieved January 24, 2022, from
https://dictionary.apa.org/lobotomy
BBC. (2021, January 30). Lobotomy:
The brain op described as 'easier than curing a toothache'. BBC
News.
Retrieved January 26, 2022, from https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55854145
Broussolle,
E., Gobert, F., Danaila, T., Thobois, S., Walusinski, O., & Bogousslavsky,
J. (2014, June 26). History of physical and 'moral' treatment of hysteria.
Karger Publishers. Retrieved January 24, 2022, from
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/360242
de Carlo, K.
(2007). Ogres and angels in the madhouse. mental health nursing identities in
film. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 16(5),
338–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0349.2007.00488.x
Estrin, E.
(1983, January 23). The unraveling of Frances Farmer. The Washington
Post. Retrieved January 24, 2022, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1983/01/23/the-unraveling-of-frances-farmer/8b1160fd-9535-474b-84e7-8bc08be388a7/
Gostin, L. O.
(1980). Ethical considerations of Psychosurgery: The unhappy legacy of the
pre-frontal lobotomy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 6(3), 149–154.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.6.3.149
Inge K. Broverman; Susan Raymond Vogel; Donald M. Broverman; Frank E.
Clarkson; Paul S. Rosenkrantz (1972). Sex-Role
Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal. , 28(2), 59–78. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1972.tb00018.x
Loukides, P.
(1996). Themes and ideologies in American popular film. Bowling Green
State Univ. Popular Press.
Micale, M. S. (1989). Hysteria and
its Historiography: A Review of Past and Present Writings (II). History of
Science, 27(4), 319–351. doi:10.1177/007327538902700401
Pouba, K.,
& Tianen, A. (2006). Lunacy in the 19th century. University of
Wisconsin Board of Regents . Retrieved January 24, 2022, from
https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/6687/Lunacy%20in%20the%2019th%20Century.pdf?sequence=1
Reed, L. (1992). Frances/“The Sexual Politics of Sickness.” Humanity
& Society, 16(1), 94–
97. https://doi.org/10.1177/016059769201600109
97. https://doi.org/10.1177/016059769201600109
Rogers, C.
(2014, December 5). Inside the 'World's most dangerous' hospital. BBC
News. Retrieved January 24, 2022, from
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30293880
Sigurðardóttir,
E. (2013, September 10). Women and madness in the 19th century. the effects
of oppression on women's Mental Health. Skemman. Retrieved January 24,
2022, from https://skemman.is/handle/1946/16449?locale=is
Universal Pictures. (1982). Frances.
Universal Pictures. (1982). Frances.
Comments
Post a Comment