Mad to Be Normal | Little White Lies

Mad to Be Normal

02 Apr 2017 / Released: 04 Apr 2017

A man and a woman sitting together in a room, looking at the camera. The woman has blonde hair and is wearing a checked shirt, while the man has dark hair and is wearing a dark jacket.
A man and a woman sitting together in a room, looking at the camera. The woman has blonde hair and is wearing a checked shirt, while the man has dark hair and is wearing a dark jacket.
3

Anticipation.

The story of this arcane figure might be one movie biopic worth making…

2

Enjoyment.

One of Tennant’s finest screen performances let down by a lack substance elsewhere.

2

In Retrospect.

Not without its moments, but mostly lives up to that horrible title.

David Ten­nant is per­fect­ly cast as Scot­tish psy­chi­a­trist RD Laing in a film that’s as undis­ci­plined as its subject.

Sham­bol­ic would be the kind assess­ment of this loose-leaf biog­ra­phy of the bohemi­an Scot­tish psy­chi­a­trist RD Laing, who for five years at the end of the 1960s ran an exper­i­men­tal facil­i­ty in London’s East End which aimed to treat patients with­out recourse to any tra­di­tion­al med­ical means. He gloats about how his method skips over such sta­ples as tran­quil­lis­ers and elec­tro shock ther­a­py in favour of old fash­ioned TLC. And the odd droplet of LSD.

On the plus side, the film is gift­ed with a smart and appeal­ing cen­tral per­for­mance from David Ten­nant, who trades in a very nice line of ticks, stam­mers and hes­i­ta­tions as he intones Laing’s crack­pot theories.

The film’s best moments are when it choses to demon­strate the ardu­ous process of psy­chi­atric care, such as a cen­tre­piece where the rock star doc waltzes into an Amer­i­can insti­tu­tion that’s styled like a 50s hor­ror film and enters into a hushed dis­course with an appar­ent­ly cata­ton­ic patient. The cam­era bare­ly moves, hold­ing onto a sim­ple two-shot with­in a cramped cell and allow­ing the actors to do their thing.

Oth­er­wise, Robert Mullan’s film is some­thing of a lost cause, to the point where it’s hard to see how it ever got the green light in the first place. It flits arbi­trar­i­ly between inci­den­tal moments. There’s an almost com­plete absence of nar­ra­tive pro­gres­sion, or any­thing that helps you to under­stand why this need­ed to be a fea­ture film and not, say, a radio play or a mag­a­zine longread.

It’s like a lengthy shop­ping list of notable moments that have been tot­ted up and, at ran­dom inter­vals, tossed at the screen with nary a care for how they might gel with one anoth­er. To the point where the film final­ly fades to black at what feels like the mid­dle of a key scene.

You might like