Bad Therapy Makes for Good Drama
By Philip Ringstrom
Posted Monday, March 26, 2001, at 12:23 PM ETWho are these people?
Dear Glen,
I'm beginning to wonder if we are hitting upon a certain entertainment axiom that states something like "bad therapy makes for good drama, while good therapy makes for bad drama." Tonight's marital therapy episode was certainly wonderfully entertaining, which, following the axiom, means that this was a disastrous therapy session. You are dead-on right that there is no clear reason for Carmela to be invited into the treatment, and the ensuing cat fight between the two women should have been pretty predictable to just about everyone except the three in the room. That Tony becomes predictably fed up with both of them completes the dramatic arch. The writers almost never let us down on this show!
The truth is, in all the training of professionals I do on the topic of marital therapy, rule No. 1 is you either do individual treatment OR you do couples treatment, but you try your very best not to do both with the same patient(s). You'd better have a really good reason if you break this rule. The reason is that if you try to do both, you end up seriously diluting both treatment modes. Now, this I think may answer our question of why the hell Melfi would court such therapeutic disaster. What is so ingenious about the writers is that, wittingly or not, the quickest way to turn down the heat between Jennifer and Tony is to introduce the lioness Carmela into the room. Diluting the therapy may be a small price to pay for keeping Tony and Jennifer from crossing much more disastrous lines. Meanwhile, is this a perpetual cliffhanger of a show or what? I'm dying to see what happens next. "Just when we think we're out, they pull us back in!"
Wonder what Peggy and Joel think.
Phil
Bad Therapy Makes for Good Drama
By Philip Ringstrom
Posted Monday, March 26, 2001, at 12:23 PM ETThis 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. 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
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Is Hasan a Terrorist? And Other Great Stories From Slate This Week.
How Sarah Palin Is Dividing the Republican Party
Can We Apply the Lessons of Y2K to Swine Flu?
They Made a Movie About the Wrong Aviatrix
Jamie Foxx's New Single Is Extremely Lewd
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
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)