Talk:Me, Myself & Irene/Archive 1

Trivia discouraged?

since when...? I went to the page Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and it never mentioned a thing about trivia sections being "discouraged"... Did some random user get on and post that because he hates trivia sections for some reason, or is a moderator of this site seariously considering deleting the trivia section? and if so, why? whats wrong with trivia? its interesting, and adds a lot to an article. I find trivia sections to be the most interesting parts of most articles. As long as we can keep the trivia sections small and interesting (i've seen some that are 2 pages long and filled with pure, pointless crap), then they seem fine to me. DurotarLord 16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with leaving trivia sections out of articles. If it's relevant to the body of the article, it should be integrated into the body. The last trivea point on mental health, for example, is relevant to the movie itself and could be included under the heading "Controversy" --Anthony 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

One thing which is interesting about this film is that it went out of the way to be controversial. The film-makers went out of their way to mis-diagnose the illness for comic effect. If I recall correctly, the tag-line of the film was changed to "Meet Charlie, Meet Hank" in Ireland because they didn't want to upset mental health charities. Black groups were also outraged at how black people were portrayed in the film. And no doubt the cow was thrown in to upset animal rights groups. --Anthony 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A more accurate diagnostic for Charlie's condition would be Dissociative identity disorder, not Schizophrenia.

ok. who said anything about schizophrenia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.20.87 (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um - the movie itself? Charlie is officially "diagnosed" with "advanced delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcisisstic rage." Jikaku (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Whats the difference? There is one?

Yes indeed. It's possible, but it is not generally the case that people with schizophrenia have Dissociative Identity Disorder. They are separate conditions. The film was criticised at the time for perpetuating this misconception.

• See [1]

• And here’s some very strong words about it, from the National Alliance on Mental Illness:

(begin quote) Me, Myself & Irene’s June 15th premiere in Hollywood also follows by about a week Mrs. Tipper Gore’s launch of the Mental Health Awareness Campaign from the White House, which has begun to air public service announcements (PSA’s) aimed specifically at overcoming stigma and promoting treatment among youth—the same audience to whom the film is partly targeted. Your public relations team is seeking to dismiss such concerns with claims that the film is "only a comedy," but for millions of Americans, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses are no laughing matter. An estimated six million young adults struggle each year with serious mental disorders. Suicide is the third-leading cause of death among those ages 15 to 24, and second among the college-age population. These also are the ages most susceptible to the "first break" of schizophrenia. Unfortunately, no one will learn to recognize symptoms and understand the onset of the disorder by watching Me, Myself & Irene, or by being exposed to its advertising, because 20th Century Fox has chosen to present an utterly false depiction.

Promotion of ignorance over public health concerns is made worse by the tastelessness and cruelty of the advertising campaign: mocking, stigmatizing slogans on posters, billboards and sides of buses ("From Gentle Mental"); on T-shirts ("I am schizo and so am I"); and drinking cups split into two sections. Most offensive of all are bottles of "pills" (i.e., jelly beans) being distributed to movie critics and others with instructions to "Take one pill every six hours for advanced delusional schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage" and a warning that side effects include "genital elephantiasis"—an apparent reference to a line in the movie in which Irene "compares" Carrey’s two characters. Putting aside the mockery of yet another disease, the promotion dangerously trivializes the role that medications play in the treatment of schizophrenia—and in light of the fact that many psychotropic medications unfortunately involve some degree of sexual dysfunction as side-effects, adds even greater insult to the injury of misinformation.

NAMI members intend to pursue a range of activities to protest the movie in communities around the nation, but we have no illusions that they will make any difference in the movie’s profit margin. We appeal instead to public opinion and whatever corporate conscience you have. To balance the destructive impact the movie will have on people with mental illnesses, their families and friends, and national policy goals, we ask that:

• The star of Me, Myself & Irene, Jim Carrey, tape public service announcements (PSA’s) about the true nature of schizophrenia, its symptoms, and opportunities for treatment and recovery.
• During talk show appearances, newspaper interviews, and other promotional appearances for the movie, Mr. Carrey clarify the major difference between schizophrenia and a multiple personality disorder, and include discussion of personal experiences in support of the Surgeon General’s anti-stigma campaign.
• 20th Century Fox Films arrange for placement of Mr. Carrey’s PSA on television and as a trailer in movie theaters.

NAMI invited 20th Century Fox Films earlier this week to send a representative to our national convention in San Diego, to participate in a discussion on "StigmaBusting and the Entertainment Industry" on June 17th. We stand ready to consider other opportunities for dialogue and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Laurie Flynn

Executive Director

• (end quote) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Me, Myself and Irene Posters.jpg

Image:Me, Myself and Irene Posters.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this movie rated? I see it nowhere in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.103.246 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)