Comments on: Is a therapist allowed to do that?

By: jen

jen — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:55:00 +0000

question…how does one report abuse from their psychologist?

By: Ryan Howes

Ryan Howes — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:35:02 +0000

It's the most realistic portrayal of therapy ever on screen so it's bound to be a lightning rod for criticism. Regardless, it's a wonderful conversation starter and may encourage some to give therapy a try. For those who have no experience with therapy, this show might give a skewed view. But as they say here in the States, caveat emptor.

By: SusanBergerMFT

SusanBergerMFT — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:01:36 +0000

I would love to know why my comment was deleted. If you have a minute you can write to me at AboutAffairs.com.

By: susanberger

susanberger — Sun, 31 May 2009 06:08:08 +0000

Besides the boundary violations, which are present understandably for dramatic effect, as is frequent “business” like getting water, coffee, etc., there is another aspect that is unrealistic. The therapeutic relationships are speeded up. Paul almost continually responds to his patients with interpretations about their unconscious motivations. He is portrayed as a psychological detective. While real contemporary analysts are referred to in discussions with Gina, there is little representation of the “holding” environment as is actually practiced by many contemporary therapists. The psychological “holding” that Paul does is accomplished instead by kindness and caretaking maneuvers that are the boundary violations people are confused about, like accepting the coffee machine and asking Laura if he can call her a cab, etc. There are ways to talk with patients in which the emotional truth of a session becomes apparent without polarizing into detective/suspect. in reality, practicing the way Paul does makes many patients defensive. I’m mentioning this not as a critique of the show. I think this speeding up is necessary for dramatic effect. However, people who might be interested in therapy might think this is what it’s really like. And it used to be more like this several decades ago until the postmodern movement started to become interested in how patients experience therapist interpretations, which can feel extremely invasive and even shaming.

By: Susan in Vancouver

Susan in Vancouver — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:43:39 +0000

Thank you Brad,
I appreciate the support.
Cheers,
Susan

By: Cheryl Fuller

Cheryl Fuller — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:35:09 +0000

I appreciate In Treatment as drama — I see each episode as a fine one act play. That doesn’t keep me from also seeing it as the best portrayal of therapy I have seen on television or in film. I am not troubled by the ways it departs from actual therapy — showing actual therapy sessions would almost certainly not be engaging viewing. But it manages to capture the flavor of therapy and the interplay of conscious and unconscious elements that are always in play in therapy.

By: Brad in Coquitlam

Brad in Coquitlam — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:45:17 +0000

Susan in Vancouver – very well put.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:58:46 +0000

It’s the best show on TV. The acting is superb – Gabriel Byrne & Canadian Allison Pill, both deserve an Emmy nomination

By: Susan in Vancouver

Susan in Vancouver — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:16:26 +0000

It seems to me a key angle of this article is actually a red herring!

“In Treatment” is not therapy, nor is it a documentary about therapy – and it doesn’t pretend to be either. It is (mostly) a series of short two-handed works of fiction set (mostly) in the offices of a therapist. Timelines are truncated and character arcs are heightened for dramatic effect. Set options are extremely limited due to the premise of the show, so bathroom and waiting room scenes are likely included simply because some aspects of story-telling occur when the characters are not actually seated facing each other.

Critiquing the structure and story arcs of “In Treatment” against actual therapy sessions and therapeutic constraints is about as useful as evaluating the validity of the high voltage, jerkily shot, romantically entangled episodes of “ER” to the actual events that occur in a real emergency room in an inner city hospital. Comparing a television drama to reality is about as useful as comparing “reality TV” to real life.

I note you have not invited screenwriters, directors, actors and set designers to critique therapy offices and what occurs within them according to the rigours of producing a work of television entertainment…

Compare and contrast if you like, but don’t judge a work of art by the same criteria one would judge its subject. It can’t be done.

PS, “In Treatment” is indeed a superb work of television drama about a truly fascinating aspect of the human condition.