MovieChat Forums > A Boy Named Charlie Brown (1969) Discussion > ECT treatments and inexpensive 'psychiat...

ECT treatments and inexpensive 'psychiatric help'


Did anyone catch what Linus said in the beginning of the film? "Hey Charlie Brown," "You look you've just received an electric shock treatment." Hmm...Didn't know that they were doing that back in '65(especially to young kids).

What's with Lucy and her "psychiatric help"? Not only does she not prescribe any rx's, she ridicules and humiliates Charlie Brown. Very clever satire by Schulz. It is possible that him or someone he knows has had bad experiences with psychiatry in general.

Assuming that Charlie Brown's allowance was 25 to 50 cents a week-why would he go bankrupt? It's only 5 cents a session! IMO Lucy's "help" wasn't worth 5 cents a session. Nor is any psychiatrist's help worth that much. No wonder so many people are turning to scientology.

reply

I always thought that was a brilliantly twisted idea of Schultz to have Lucy offer psychiatry help instead of having a lemonade stand. The unmitigated arrogance of Lucy to think that she was qualified to give out psychiatric help and yes, she treated Charlie Brown like crap, which was rather strange since he was really her only client. Did we ever see anyone else seeking Lucy's council? Maybe her brother Linus once, but that's it. But what I coud never figure out is Lucy always made Charlie Brown feel like crap and yet he kept coming back to her. What was that about?

reply



Well, keep in mind that there's noone else in that neighborhood offering psychiatric help to the kids except Lucy. She's got a cornerstone on the market.


Though notice that sometimes for psychiatric help, Lucy charges 5 cents and doesn't help at all. Whereas Linus offers advice for free, and he usually has a much better viewpoint on the situation.

As for how a little girl like Lucy can think she's qualified to help people with their problems, it all stems to a factor of little kids. What little kid has not felt like they know everything?

A-ha-ha-ha, you're really weird!-Willy Wonka

reply

The Linus/Lucy comparison is great...it perfectly shows in a way psychiatry in the real world, which we pay for, which is ridiculous in a way, generic, unfeeling, just the facts mamm kinda vibe about it, whereas when we really communicate with each other as people as hokey as it sounds, there is wisdom beyond the light years of prescribed Prozac...

reply

[deleted]

It must feel really nice not to have a real mental illness for which you need real help. Some of us are not so fortunate.

I have, however, always loved Lucy's "psychiatric help" stand, though no, it isn't actually worth a nickel. It is much more amusing than a lemonade stand, and it's fairly in keeping with Lucy's temperament that she thinks she can provide a service for which adults need an MD.

reply

Electro-convulsive therapy goes back to the late 1930's.

reply

This movie came out right around the time that Ken Kesey's book "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was popular. The film came out in '75 and was equally popular, but the book was published in the late '60s. In both instances, electro-shock therapy was a haunting scene in the story.

Also, I think Charles Schulz was always highly skeptical of psychology as a frivolous nonsense science, as many from his generation felt. We know different now, of course, with medicines that are helping millions, but in the 50s and 60s it was still in its infancy -- well, maybe toddler years, and although embraced by younger, hipper people, it was scorned by older white conservatives who believed that suffering gave you character.

From his cartoons, it seems that Charles Schulz felt psychology -- for all its worth -- could be dispensed as freely as lemonade for a nickel. Look carefully at the Peanuts cartoons in the 60s and you see that Schulz was very harsh and critical about a lot of things. Like women. All of his female characters back then were harpies.

Anyway, it made for some hilarious comic strips and it's the work that really matters in the end, right?

reply

Electric shock therapy is still used today, though very controversial, and has been shown to help certain mental disorders.

reply


"Also, I think Charles Schulz was always highly skeptical of psychology as a frivolous nonsense science"

Don't confuse psychiatry and psychology.

Psychology is indeed a very scientific, valid and helpful approach to study the human psyche, even though it has strayed from the factual realm and has intertwined with the pseudoscience called 'psychiatry' a lot these days.


Neurology is another very necessary and admirable field, but as nothing on this planet is what it's supposed to be, I am sure that area also suffers from some faults.

But psychiatry - what is that? It's not needed. If there's a physical fault in the brain, neurology is the answer.

If there's problem with the psyche, then psychology should be helpful.

What the hell does psychiatry help with? Pharma corporations, of course. That's it's task. Psychiatry is not a science, it has never cured anyone, and the 'help' it offers, is highly questionable, with the faulting of the patients (constantly telling them how sick, disturbed and mentally imbalanced they are, instead of encouraging them and telling them they are exactly as they are supposed to be), and indoctrinating and pressuring them to conform to the dogma of 'normalcy' (defined by them of course), while pumping them full of dangerous neurotoxins, which are known to cause tardive dyskinesia (permanent shaking of the hands, for example, which can lead to paralysis and death).

Psychiatry is not needed, but psychology and neurology are. The way psychology is used to aid the control that psychiatry wants is shameful, but in it's pure form, psychology can be good and bring us knowledge about the inner workings of the human psyche.

Having said all that, I think the way psychiatry is shown in the movie is brilliant - it's truthful, it's pretty accurate, and it's very true to life. That's pretty much what psychiatrists do - they try to convince you have all these 'faults', they convince you are not 'normal', they try to destroy any self esteem and self-respect you might have left, and then they slap you with a bill and tell you your only hope is a long-term therapy. The only thing missing from Lucy's "treatment" was to dump a bunch of pills on Charlie Brown, and then tell him if they don't work or cause strange things like drooling, hallucinations, insomnia, dhiarrea or disorientation, she has a couple of other brands she could test him with.

Psychiatry is quackery, but people have been taught it's science and that it is "THE ANSWER", if anything is wrong with their lives, especially with the emotional or mental "balance", as they call it, and it's the control method where all the 'difficult' people are forcefully guided into. When the system thinks your thoughts are not 'healthy', into psychiatry you go, to be 'treated'. So you will then be treated all your life, pretty much the same way Lucy does in the movie, without any hope of 'recovery'.

Sometimes, patients do 'recover', despite psychiatry's efforts to keep them buying pills, accusations and guilt from them. Psychiatry doesn't like this much, but on the other hand, can use these people as a feather in their cap to show that it "works". The thing is, people who recover, do so despite psychiatry, not because of it. It's always a financial disaster when a patient stops using the drugs and stops receiving the psychiatric tortu.. services.

It's big business, with pills that have "death" listed as one side effect.

This movie actually deals with psychiatry with a very light touch - the reality is just so much more harsh.

As far as people turning to scientology - you are talking as if there are only two options. Scientology is not an answer, but I bet it's probably a lot less dangerous and more healthy than psychiatry.

Anyone who knows the history of psychiatry can never see psychiatry in any kind of positive light. It has helped exactly no one.

If you are hearing voices or seeing hallucinations, there might be other explanations than "brain chemical imbalance" (which is, ironically, measured only AFTER you have been pumped full of psychiatric, chemical drugs!).

Life is eternal, and energy never disappears, it only changes form, and we are all energy. That means that life continues after death, like we have always been taught. People living in the astral world, contacting people who live in the physical world, thus, shouldn't be such an impossibility.

I suggest anyone suffering from what they think might be 'mental illness' (which might actually just be wrong thinking combined with sensitivity for extra-sensory perception or energy flows not working properly), first go to a Chinese doctor - acupuncturist -, then find some other alternatives, like herbal medicine, meditation, prayer, etc.

Only if none of this helps, would I ever suggest going to a good psychologist (but not psychiatrist!). Good being that they are not bought by corporations and do not associate themselves to psychiatry in any way.

Don't confuse psychiatry with psychology. Psychiatry has no reason to exist, psychology is a necessary study of the psyche, that has produced very interesting results that can help the whole humanity in the long run.

reply

I heard an interview with Schulz where he said it was basically a parody of the stereotyped lemonade stands that populated comic strips and TV and kids' movies of the time. I seem to recall that he wasn't deliberately parodying the psychiatric profession, but I could be wrong. Of course, those lemonade stands have pretty much vanished from the public consciousness, but we all remember Lucy's psychiatric booth.


Autobiography in six words: "Baby, you ain't seen nothin' yet!"

reply

In 69, Freudian psychoanalysis would have been popular with liberals, but only Jung is popular today (new agers). It was mocked by a few critics at the time. What is with the Scientology comment?

Some have speculated Schulz had Aspergers, perhaps he had bad experience with psychologists.

reply

"Did anyone catch what Linus said in the beginning of the film? "Hey Charlie Brown," "You look you've just received an electric shock treatment." "

Why? Why do people who quote movies, do it almost always wrong? Linus says nothing of the kind!

Linus says: "You look like you have been taking shock treatments, or something."

That's the exact quote.

Linus does not mention the word "electric", and he does not use the word "received", as if Charlie is a passive automaton with no will of is own (doesn't surprise me though, because in today's climate, that's what people have become, so why shouldn't they think Linus thinks Charlie is one too).

Please at least watch the movie you are quoting, and the part you are quoting, before quoting it.

I could call you a liar, because you are certainly not telling the truth, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude you are just mentally lazy and disrespectful to your readers, not bothering to make sure what you write is correct. This is also typical, egotistical, selfish behaviour of our times - when you are too self-centerd to even consider the reader would rather have the truth than your lies/misrepresentations, and justify it with you being sooo busy, you never stop to question whether you should even make a post in a board or not.

I think you should rather wait until you have time to check that your claims are true, than just write when you are so busy you can't do this simple thing.

"Hmm...Didn't know that they were doing that back in '65(especially to young kids)"

This is a 1969 movie. It even states that here in IMDb. So you are doing it AGAIN. Twice in the same post! And I bet you are not even feeling any shame about it, but probably just boost your ego with anger, when I dare point out your lies/misinformation.

Just because Linus says that's what Charlie looks like, doesn't mean they were ACTUALLY doing this to kids in the sixties (though I can't see why not - they are a cruel bunch - otherwise they wouldn't ever have done it at all). And think about what you are saying for awhile - this is a CARTOON.

Do you really think cartoons represent the "real world" completely and 100%? Do you really think it's possible for a baseball to unstrip a boy half-naked, repeatedly?

Furthermore, have you ever heard of sayings, idioms and exaggarations? Like: "You look like you have seen a ghost". If Linus had said that, would your post now be complaining that "I didn't know they showed ghosts to kids in '65"?

That would be just as stupid as what you wrote.

As a last note, Charlie Brown's "kids" are not REALLY kids. The whole Peanuts world is a symbol, not a representation of how things really are. They are more like "adults that look like kids", or "adult souls in kids' bodies", or "adults placed into a kids' world", or something along those lines. Kids certainly don't behave the way they do in these movies and strips, and they have pretty meaningful, deep conversations that kids would definitely never have. Real kids are more interested in what's on the TV, or if they get to go play that new video game to their friend's house than what life is all about, or what shock treatment even is. They might ask about why the sky is blue, but give them a shiny toy with flashing lights, and they will have forgotten your (probably wrong) answer faster than you can say 'dumb brats'.

"Assuming that Charlie Brown's allowance was 25 to 50 cents a week-why would he go bankrupt? It's only 5 cents a session! "

Who says it's 5 cents a session? The sign only says "Psychiatric help 5 ¢". It could mean 5 ¢ an hour, or a minute for all we know. Who says his allowance is that much, and who says he doesn't need most of that money for something else?

Also, if that were the case, why would Lucy say: "Wait until you get my bill"?

Surely she wouldn't say that, if she intended to send him just a 5 ¢ bill, which wouldn't shock Charlie anyway, because it says 5 ¢ on the sign. Which would mean it wouldn't make any sense for her to say that.

So instead of assuming anything about Charlie's allowance, we should rather assume that the bill will be way more than 5 ¢ - there's actually more reason to make this assumption than yours.

Or we could stop assumptions altogether, and realize this was another jab at the way psychiatrists offer absolutely no help or cure at all, and yet slap the customer with a huge bill.

"Nor is any psychiatrist's help worth that much."

Uh, yeah. That's the point. I wonder why your post is so inconsistent - you ask questions, and then you answer them yourself. The whole point is that psychiatrists do not only charge a lot, they clearly overcharge for their questionable 'services'.

Here is another part of your post that does this.. shall I say "schizophrenic" conversation with yourself:

"What's with Lucy and her "psychiatric help"? Not only does she not prescribe any rx's, she ridicules and humiliates Charlie Brown. Very clever satire by Schulz."

First you ask a question about the psychiatric help - and then you state that it's clever satire, answering the very question you ask. What is the reader to think? How can anyone else answer a question that you already answered yourself? Yes, _THAT'S_ with Lucy and her "psychiatric help". It's to point out this is how psychiatry really works - it claims to help, but in actuality, doesn't. It's not even satire, really - it's more like showing exactly what it's like (minus the drugs).

All in all, your post is pretty worthless, and full of lies / misrepresentations / misinformation, and although your conclusions are correct, the incoherence makes the reader wonder whether you are on psychiatric drugs as you type..


reply

Speaking of psychiatric drugs, are you sure you shouldn't consider going back on your meds, avortac?

reply