HOME / tv club: Talking television.

The First Five Weeks of Season 3 of The Sopranos

Is Dr. Melfi Well Served By Her Shrink?

Posted Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at 10:26 PM ET

Who are these people?

Dear Glen, Phil, and Joel,

Glen, I may be a tough "supervisor," but it doesn't mean I lack compassion for our Sopranos clinical crew! Both Jennifer and her therapist, Elliot, are certainly accomplishing some productive work with their patients. But situations like this--where the patient is "in extremis" and the therapy is only moderately helpful--do call for a reassessment of the treatment situation. Is the therapeutic match an optimal one? That is, are the patient and the therapist (personally or in terms of his/her technical approach) the best possible fit to get the most done for this patient? Do the liabilities inherent in that particular therapeutic relationship (and there are always difficulties) outweigh the benefits of it, or do these two balance out in the long run? Just as important, is the structure of the treatment optimal? (That is, is it the best frequency and length of session? Would fewer or more be better?)

I think this episode raises major questions about whether Melfi is well served by seeing her shrink only periodically (at least, I get the impression it's only here-and-there, or once a week at best), rather than being in psychoanalysis with him (that is, seeing him three or four times a week). I also think he may not (temperamentally) be able to offer her the kind of strong, steady presence that would enable her to delve more deeply into her aggressive and dependent feelings. Were he able to do so, and were they meeting more frequently in a more intensive treatment, she might be able to work out her feelings in the context of her relationship with her own therapist, rather than working so much of them out with Tony, her patient. But, admittedly, I'm talking about an ideal scenario, which isn't always practicable. With the explosive clinical situation that is Tony Soprano, one would hope for the ideal therapy setup!

Peggy

Is Dr. Melfi Well Served By Her Shrink?

Posted Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at 10:26 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
This spring, Slate will ask Dr. Melfi's real-life counterparts to examine developments on The Sopranos. Glen O. Gabbard, M.D., is a professor of psychoanalysis at the Menninger Clinic and co-author of Psychiatry and the Cinema. Philip A. Ringstrom, Ph.D., Psy.D., is an analyst at the Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles and a full-time practitioner. Joel Whitebook, a practicing analyst in New York, is on the faculty of the Columbia Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Margaret Crastnopol, Ph.D., is on the faculty of the Northwest Center for Psychoanalysis and a practicing psychologist/psychoanalyst in Seattle. Click here to comment on Sunday night's episode.
COMMENTS

Reader Comments From The Fray:



Margaret Crastnopol hit it right on the head: we are being too easy on Melfi (or at least the portrayal of Melfi). Fact is, Tony Soprano is an idiot and she's physically intimidated by him. She's also turned on by him--which is a revolting possibility. Thing is, thousands of women are, in fact, turned on by Tony and his merry band of thugs. Crastnopol's suggestion that the doctor-patient and doctor-doctor power positioning does little to counter stereotypes of weak women being pushed around by angry, stupid men--this is all correct, too. Actually, the whole program is misogynistic and ought not be watched by anyone....yet, I'm strangely attracted to it, bad writing/acting and all. Is it that I'm that desperate for entertainment or is this representative of some deep misogyny within? Doctors, tell me: what drives us (me) to watch this thing, even when I know it's negative TV? There are too many men and women out there watching this and thinking that this is an acceptable way of life. What's wrong with us? A diagnosis, please.

--Phil H.

(To reply, click here.)


To Phil H:

There is nothing wrong with "us." But there is a problem with your formulation of the problem. To enjoy this well-written and well-acted drama, we are not obligated to find that the fictional characters pursue "an acceptable way of life." On the contrary, I would guess that 99.9% of viewers strenuously object to the way Tony puts bread on the Sopranos' table.

We enjoy the bravura plot twists, the odd contrasts, the marvelous characterizations, and the Machiavellian tactics--and the occasionally absurd results of the characters' efforts. The monstrous is combined with the mundane in a striking and amusing way. Consider Tony strangling a mafia traitor as his beloved daughter is interviewed for admission to a genteel New England college.

Millions of people have read and admired Crime and Punishment. Do you suppose they accepted the grotesque reasoning that drove Dostoyevsky's main character? Must we approve of step-patricide to enjoy Hamlet?

Relax and enjoy the series. If you feel the urge to emulate the main characters, call your therapist (or your local sheriff).

--Gary

(To reply, click here.)


On the question of the Mafia don who approved of Tony's therapy: Remember that this was a leader of the Manhattan mob. Probably they are a little more sophisticated than the Jersey crowd. Remember, it was only Junior and Tony's assumption that seeing a shrink was taboo. The New York family was probably way ahead of them.

--Aurora Duane

(To reply, click here.)

(3/15)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
DOONESBURY FLASHBACK
TODAY'S VIDEO
Nice boots!39/TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on breast cancer.80/TC.jpg
You don't say.86/TD.jpg