Editorials
Here’s Why ‘Split’ is the Wrong Target for the Mental Illness Debate
We’ve written a handful of articles about M. Night Shyamalan’s Split here on Bloody Disgusting in the past week, and that’s because, well, it’s our duty to talk about this stuff. We posted two reviews, one written by Trace Thurman and the other by Jimmy Champane, and we also dug into a few problems with the film: I wrote about its final act issues, while Chris Webster had a problem with the protagonist. For the most part, issues aside, we all agreed that Split is a damn fine horror film, and we’re incredibly happy to see it reigning supreme at the box office.
A win for original horror is a win for us all.
But one aspect of Split we haven’t yet dug into is the single most talked-about and controversial aspect of the whole damn thing. From the very moment the first trailer hit the net, many were concerned that Shyamalan was furthering harmful stigmas about mental illness – the film centers on a madman with the very real Dissociative Identity Disorder – and countless think-pieces have hit the net in the wake of release. Personally speaking, I’ve had several debates about this very topic on social media, and now that I’ve had a week to really think hard about the film, I wanted to write my own piece.
Contrary to many, I found Split to be anything but insensitive on this particular front.
Now mind you, I don’t personally suffer from any form of diagnosed mental illness, so if that somewhat negates my opinion on this whole issue, I totally understand. It’s hard to be taken seriously when talking about something that doesn’t directly impact you yourself in any real way, so believe me, I get it. If people who do suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder have taken issue with Split and its depiction of it, I take that very seriously and consider that there must be something to that whole argument. So please know that I’m not disregarding anyone’s opinion, but merely stating my own.
One major issue with the argument against Split, however? I’ve spoken with a handful of active members of the mental health community who feel the film is harmful, stigmatizing and totally insensitive… but they haven’t actually seen it for themselves. They’re basing that opinion on trailers, plot descriptions, and articles they’ve read online; in other words, they never gave the film a chance to prove their hunches wrong. Many decided to boycott based on the trailer alone, which I take issue with for one big reason: Split, contrary to whatever you may have ascertained from the trailer, is a film that actually treats mental illness with a welcome degree of care; furthermore, it depicts those who suffer not as less than, but as more than.
There’s an entire sub-plot in Split, away from the main storyline centered on three young women locked up in a basement by James McAvoy’s mentally unwell Kevin, that’s all about Kevin’s doctor, Karen Fletcher. Played by Betty Buckley, Fletcher is Kevin’s psychiatrist, looking out for and protecting him after everyone else has discarded him. Many have criticized the sub-plot for making the film drag in parts and ultimately taking away from what’s really compelling about the story, but Dr. Fletcher’s storyline is incredibly important when debating the film’s ethics.
Fletcher’s theory on Kevin and others who suffer from his disorder is that they’re more advanced than the rest of us, having unlocked the true power of their brains and, essentially, becoming superhuman as a result of their incredible life traumas. There’s even one scene where Fletcher explains this theory to a classroom via Skype, and the scene seems to exist for the sole purpose of Shyamalan letting us know that he’s actively NOT trying to paint mental illness in a negative light. You could argue that the scene is unnecessary to the actual plot of the film, but it’s there nonetheless, and it’s there for a reason. Those with D.I.D. are not “broken,” Shyamalan is telling us, but rather “more than” the rest of us.
And this idea plays heavily into Split‘s final moments, which I won’t spoil for anyone who hasn’t yet seen the film. Shyamalan hits home the idea that our various traumas and mental illnesses make us stronger and perhaps even “purer”; and if you’re asking me, he ultimately sends a very empowering message to those who, like Kevin and Casey, may feel broken and cast aside by society. Granted, he doesn’t quite hit that ball out of the park (the film feels like its lacking a final scene necessary to really tie everything together and make it all resonate), but he tries. And his positive message, to me at least, was very clear.
Jimmy Champane felt the same way in his aforementioned review. He wrote:
On the topic of the criticism Split has drawn on its villain using mental illness as a catch-all excuse, I personally think Shyamalan treats the disorder with care. A not-so-subtle undertone of the film focuses on Kevin’s therapist’s struggle to bring Dissociative Identity Disorder as the key to unlocking the potential of the human brain – and it works. Additionally, the way Shyamalan carefully uses Casey’s past as a tool to show why she’s able to keep a cool head and outsmart Kevin’s different personalities shows that he went the extra mile to delicately show his respect for those struggling with mental illness.
Yes, many horror films do depict the mentally ill as crazy, broken madmen, and though Split‘s antagonist is indeed a villain who does some awful things, there’s something way more going on just beneath the surface. Shyamalan clearly had something to say with Split, and though you may take issue with the way he went about saying it, I ask you to at least consider that he was trying, like few filmmakers actually have, to not depict mental illness as something we ought to be afraid of. And I also ask, to those who have judged it without seeing it, that you at least give it a chance.
An important issue to raise, but Split is the wrong target.
Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.
To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.
Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.
After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.
SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?
Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.
For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.
Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.
Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?
AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?
Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.
From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.
The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.
Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.
With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega…
There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.
Looking for New Episodes of “Chucky” on Peacock? Here’s What Changed
‘Mountain Man’ – Joe Manganiello Will Battle Zombies in Upcoming Horror Movie
‘The Blair Witch Project’ – Original Stars Release a Statement Asking Lionsgate for Residuals & Recognition
‘Trap’ – Official Trailer Previews a Wild New Horror Experience from M. Night Shyamalan
‘Halloween: Illustrated’ Review: Original Novelization of John Carpenter’s Classic Gets an Upgrade
You must be logged in to post a comment.