(Spoilers ahead for Sarvam Maaya)
I watched the Malayalam movie *Sarvam Maaya*, starring Nivin Pauly and directed by Akhil Sathyan. It was refreshing to see Nivin Pauly back in his comfort zone.
The story, however, felt very familiar—echoing several earlier Malayalam films like *Vismayathumbath* and *Koode*. We more or less know the template: a ghost enters the hero’s life, fixes his problems, and in return, the hero helps the ghost find closure. That predictability aside, this is **not a film review**, and I don’t intend to analyse the narrative or cinematic choices in depth.
What I want to focus on instead is something more troubling: **the persistent stereotype of psychiatrists in Malayalam cinema**. I like to call this the **“Manichithrathazhu Effect.”**
The Origin of a Stereotype
Every Malayali knows Dr Sunny—the iconic character played by Mohanlal in *Manichithrathazhu*, arguably one of the most revered Malayalam films ever made. Watching Mohanlal glide effortlessly between humour, eccentricity, curiosity, emotional depth, and the sharpness of a detective was pure cinematic joy
Yes, the way Dissociative Identity Disorder is “treated” in the film is scientifically questionable. But despite that, *Manichithrathazhu* remains close to perfection as a film. Dr Sunny’s eccentricity works beautifully within that cinematic universe—it makes us smile, keeps us engaged, and makes us love the character instantly.
Although a real-life psychiatrist would never behave like Dr Sunny, **that one exception felt acceptable**, because it served the film so well.
The problem is what happened *after* that film.
When One Exception Becomes the Rule
Post-*Manichithrathazhu*, many filmmakers seem to have internalised the idea that **psychiatrists must be eccentric**, or worse, that eccentricity is what makes a psychiatrist “interesting” on screen. This assumption is, frankly, a delusion—or as the internet slang used in Sarvam Maaya would put it, “delulu”: a belief completely disconnected from reality.
In *Sarvam Maaya*, Alphonse Puthren plays a psychiatrist trained at NIMHANS. The very first thing he asks the protagonist is something along the lines of:
*“Are you bipolar? Are you anxious? Then what coconut is this?”*
I genuinely don’t know which doctor greets a distressed patient like this.
Alphonse Puthren
The hero then describes clear **visual hallucinations**—a young girl entering his room, checking his phone, speaking to him, while no one else can see or hear her. This is a **psychotic symptom** that requires careful, structured evaluation. Instead, the psychiatrist casually reassures him that this is “normal,” asks him to relax, and prescribes **melatonin**, suggesting that sleep will fix everything
Sleep fixing psychosis?
Seriously—*wtf, bro*.
This reminded me of an earlier Sathyan Anthikkad film (*Njan Prakashan*, if I recall correctly), where laughter was suggested as a cure for brain tumour. Here Akhil Sathyan seems to suggest that **sleep cures psychosis**- Vappachiyude legacy, perhaps?. Both ideas are scientifically wrong.
Unsurprisingly, the melatonin doesn’t work. The ghost and the hero become friends, solve each other’s problems, and the film moves towards a happy ending. I left the theatre disappointed—not because of the fantasy, but because of yet another careless portrayal of psychiatry.
Psychiatry as Comic Relief (Again)
This isn’t an isolated case. In *Guruvayoorambalanadayil*, actor Jomon Jyothir plays a psychiatrist whose sole purpose seems to be comic relief. He stalks Anaswara Rajan’s character, threatens suicide to sabotage her marriage, and even disguises himself as a parrot astrologer (*kili jyothishan*—a traditional fortune teller who predicts the future using a parrot).
Jomon Jyothir in Guruvayoorambalanadayil
There was absolutely no need for this character to be a psychiatrist. He could have been anything. But making him a psychiatrist apparently “justified” his bizarre and unethical behaviour.
It wasn’t funny.
And more importantly, it wasn’t harmless.
Why This Matters
Recent data show that **1 in 10 Indians** lives with a mental health condition that requires professional psychiatric care. One of the biggest barriers to seeking help is **stigma**—and cinema plays a massive role in shaping public attitudes.
Multiple content analyses of Indian films between 2011 and 2021 show that **42–60% of psychiatric portrayals are negative**. Psychiatrists are often depicted as eccentric, incompetent, unethical, or even villainous. These portrayals reinforce myths—psychiatry as quackery, psychiatrists as unstable, or mental illness as something better explained by ghosts and supernatural forces than by science.
When cinema repeatedly chooses **ghosts over psychiatry**, it subtly discourages people from seeking real help.
In reality, psychiatrists are remarkably ordinary—perhaps disappointingly so. They study medicine like any other doctor, complete an MBBS, followed by an MD/DNB in Psychiatry, and attempt to help people using science, empathy, and evidence-based treatment.
Very simply put:
The brain’s motor and sensory functions are primarily managed by neurologists, while the brain’s emotional, behavioural, and cognitive functions fall under psychiatry.
It really is that straightforward
Time to Move On from This “Delulu”
Malayalam cinema prides itself on realism and social responsibility. Surely, it’s time our filmmakers moved past this outdated, lazy trope of the “eccentric psychiatrist.”
Psychiatrists don’t need to be caricatures to be interesting.
And mental illness doesn’t need to be trivialised to tell a compelling story.
It’s time we let go of this delulu—for the sake of cinema, and more importantly, for the people who need help but hesitate to ask for it.
-Written by a practising psychiatrist
