Like many of the other reviewers, I sense the Dr. has blinders on. We are shown only those murderers who tend to support her assumption of multiple personality. Yes, it would be nice to have seen some critical analysis, but this was a documentary, not a double-blind experiment. One should expect to see primarily one view. If you're like me, you can understand that, and be impressed by the access she had to some seriously crazy (insane? evil?) people.
31 Reviews
Enjoyable but biased
kedove-225-2319988 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this documentary, it's a very interesting subject to me. On the other hand it's hard not to wonder how every person on death row fits her mold of multiple personality disorder. At the end she presents her argument that Bundy had multiple personalities...and that's where she lost credibility in my eyes. He was a supremely manipulative individual and he gave her exactly what she wanted to hear; she swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. It would have been nice to hear opposing views. Also, it pushes anti-death penalty pretty hard and that rubbed me wrong.
Assessing the life and works of psychiatrist Dorothy Lewis
paul-allaer19 November 2020
"Crazy, Not Insane" (2020 release; 117 min.) is a documentary that takes a closer look at the life and works of noted psychiatrist Dorothy Lewis. As the film opens, she explains why she became interested in examining serial killers: "It's like a chance to interview Hitler". Later on she ponders: "Why don't I murder? why don't you murder?" We then go back in time, as Lewis, upon graduating from the Yale School of Medicine, by happenstance becomes involved with juvenile delinquents, and makes a startling discovery that shows a physical difference in the brains of homicidal vs. non-homicidal delinquents... At this point we are 10 min. into the movie.
Couple of comments: this is the latest film from long-time documentarian Alex Gibney, who just recently released the excellent "Agents of Chaos", and whose prior work also includes 2013's "The Armstrong Lie" and 2015's "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief", among many others. Here he takes a closer look at the (for some: groundbreaking, for others: controversial) work by Dorothy Lewis in the filed of understanding what makes serial killers do what they do. The documentary takes a good half hour to really get going, but after that, we are knee-deep into the core issue: do you accept/believe in the concept of multiple personality disorder, also known as dissociative identity disorder, or not? There are plenty of video clips from Lewis' work in the late 80s-early 90s when Lewis came to the forefront of this issue. It makes for at times fascinating viewing, and while it is pretty clear where Gibney stands in all of this, he gives plenty of space to both sides of the argument. I must say that, given Gibney's considerable reputation as one of the premier documentarians of this generation, I had expected something more, and that this does not rank among his very best work. Not that I think that "Crazy, Not Insane" is "bad" or anything. It's just not a heavyweight like some of his best documentaries.
"Crazy, Not Insane" was scheduled to premier at this year's SXSW festival in March. Then a little thing call COVID-19 changed the world as we know it (SXSW was canceled). The movie finally premiered at this year's Venice Film Festival in September, and started showing on HBO earlier this week. It is now available on HBO On Demand and other streaming services. If you are a fan of Alex Gibney's work or simply are interested in catching a true crime-reminding documentary, I'd readily suggest you check this out on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.
Couple of comments: this is the latest film from long-time documentarian Alex Gibney, who just recently released the excellent "Agents of Chaos", and whose prior work also includes 2013's "The Armstrong Lie" and 2015's "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief", among many others. Here he takes a closer look at the (for some: groundbreaking, for others: controversial) work by Dorothy Lewis in the filed of understanding what makes serial killers do what they do. The documentary takes a good half hour to really get going, but after that, we are knee-deep into the core issue: do you accept/believe in the concept of multiple personality disorder, also known as dissociative identity disorder, or not? There are plenty of video clips from Lewis' work in the late 80s-early 90s when Lewis came to the forefront of this issue. It makes for at times fascinating viewing, and while it is pretty clear where Gibney stands in all of this, he gives plenty of space to both sides of the argument. I must say that, given Gibney's considerable reputation as one of the premier documentarians of this generation, I had expected something more, and that this does not rank among his very best work. Not that I think that "Crazy, Not Insane" is "bad" or anything. It's just not a heavyweight like some of his best documentaries.
"Crazy, Not Insane" was scheduled to premier at this year's SXSW festival in March. Then a little thing call COVID-19 changed the world as we know it (SXSW was canceled). The movie finally premiered at this year's Venice Film Festival in September, and started showing on HBO earlier this week. It is now available on HBO On Demand and other streaming services. If you are a fan of Alex Gibney's work or simply are interested in catching a true crime-reminding documentary, I'd readily suggest you check this out on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.
Interesting but biased, academia vs reality
akurschybee8 December 2020
It's easy to start falling down the rabbit hole of whatever your life work is. I think Dorothy bridged some huge gaps in mental health and how that affects some people. Like the film said, killers are made, not born. However, to be in favor of halting death penalty cases so one can be researched (or do the researching) is very wrong. I feel this film focused on the humanity of the killer and ignored the victims. That's fine if you're doing research to understand the mind of a killer, but to want to take on the ethics of capital punishment goes too far. MANY people have really messed up childhoods and anyone reading this has experienced that or knows someone who did. They don't all start killing (and that's addressed in this film). But the death penalty isn't only about ridding humanity of a threat or to even be a deterrent for others. It's about getting justice for the victim(s) and the family(s) of the victim(s). It would be nice if life was free of horrible, terrible things like rape, murder, torture etc. Unfortunately, that's just a part of human nature that will never go away. Doing research and attempting to understand all facets of the human brain is fantastic - the more we know the better. However, the death penalty should be in place in EVERY STATE and used only for the worst of society who's crimes have been proved 100% - there's ZERO chance that a mistake has been made. Society needs that. To know that there is a punishment to fit the crime.
Gibney Returns To Magnificent Form!
helenahandbasket-9373416 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Be warned- if you're not interested in the deeper psychological manifestations of the serial murderer/killer and what makes them 'them', this likely won't be as deeply fascinating as HBOMax would lead you to believe.
Dr Ottnow-Lewis has long been on my radar as a clinical psychologist, and I am fascinated by the work she's laid bare by her firm belief that while there may very well be deeply-ingrained mechanisms within the brain that lead us to do what we do. However, nurture can also be a leading indicator that can 'flip the switch' in someone who is already leaning towards a proclivity of unthinkable acts.
Park Dietz is a little too 'Hollywood' for my tastes- he always seems to gravitate towards this type of story. He rose to prominence after his work with Betty Broderick; although work may be overstating what was done. Brought in to benefit the case, he had never even bothered to interview her for five minutes, but because of his prominence with the Hinkley case (attempted assassination of President Reagan for Jody Foster) he felt somehow competent to diagnose based solely on the word of others. That has a ring of egotism and something no self-respecting clinician should ever be able to do.
Aside from that, this is an excellent, straightforward piece of work that lies bare the age-old argument of nature vs nurture, and how closely these two very different things actually co-mingle. That two seemingly identical people with very similar backgrounds/situations can go in very different directions; the human brain is still a vast mystery of epic proportions, that may never be fully understood, but Lewis' groundbreaking work goes further than previously explored.
Dr Ottnow-Lewis has long been on my radar as a clinical psychologist, and I am fascinated by the work she's laid bare by her firm belief that while there may very well be deeply-ingrained mechanisms within the brain that lead us to do what we do. However, nurture can also be a leading indicator that can 'flip the switch' in someone who is already leaning towards a proclivity of unthinkable acts.
Park Dietz is a little too 'Hollywood' for my tastes- he always seems to gravitate towards this type of story. He rose to prominence after his work with Betty Broderick; although work may be overstating what was done. Brought in to benefit the case, he had never even bothered to interview her for five minutes, but because of his prominence with the Hinkley case (attempted assassination of President Reagan for Jody Foster) he felt somehow competent to diagnose based solely on the word of others. That has a ring of egotism and something no self-respecting clinician should ever be able to do.
Aside from that, this is an excellent, straightforward piece of work that lies bare the age-old argument of nature vs nurture, and how closely these two very different things actually co-mingle. That two seemingly identical people with very similar backgrounds/situations can go in very different directions; the human brain is still a vast mystery of epic proportions, that may never be fully understood, but Lewis' groundbreaking work goes further than previously explored.
Interesting Topic but Gets Repetitive
mycannonball4 November 2021
the ironlady with a soft heart
ops-5253519 November 2020
On the subject dissosiative personality disorder, or the scapegoat to every ''eye for an eye''-fanaticand criminal court systen back in the medeval ages of 1980's and 1990's usa. beloved and hatred for her simple claim that noone is born evil, and that there are always an environmental or medical disorder behind every crime, the worse a crime, the more damaged the perputrator are.having an ethical code that says if your insane you cannot be punished to death by excecution, and that is a roaring cry that should be heard among the medical and justice superiors in every criminal court anywhere.
its a docu that can make the viewer feel sick, and the mentaly instable turn unstable. because the case descriptions and lots of the material in the cases from real life are so grotesque, graphic and violent in its nature. so beware and behold, its an interesting ride, but can be a bold swallow to take.the grumpy old man recommends
its a docu that can make the viewer feel sick, and the mentaly instable turn unstable. because the case descriptions and lots of the material in the cases from real life are so grotesque, graphic and violent in its nature. so beware and behold, its an interesting ride, but can be a bold swallow to take.the grumpy old man recommends
Too much hokum
dneher1 December 2020
Dr. Lewis likely has interviewed more serial killers than anyone else on the planet, but it is doubtful whether all that talk has produced any useful research on the subject. Her seeming determination to discover multiple personalities in every serial killer she interviews damages her credibility and exposes her stunning gullibility.
Amazing woman who has done incredible work in this difficult area
samanthambushby13 September 2021
Exceptional film looking at a woefully neglected area i.e the effect of extreme trauma on a child and in certain cases the development of a Multiple Personality Disorder in those that become killers as adults. I love Dorothy Lewis. She is full of such wisdom, knowledge and understanding into the damage that trauma does to children and adults and therefore society.
A train wreck of confirmation biases and manipulators leading pure academics by the nose
tsh3326 December 2020
I think most reasonably intelligent people realize that some of the most sadistic, unempathetic, sociopathic criminals in our midst come from awful backgrounds, dysfunctional families, abuse, and trauma. The credibility of this program's assertions quickly ends there.
The program proceeds to document two academic psychotherapists being led around by the nose by some of the most manipulative personalities known, psychopathic sexual sadists and murderers. Murders who repeatedly and conveniently evidence, for the first time, multiple personality disorders, when interviewed by these two. Performances which are encouraged and almost welcomed with glee. If you want to watch something that will strip you of any faith you might have in defense "experts," watch this. This is the definition of confirmation bias in quasi-science.
The program proceeds to document two academic psychotherapists being led around by the nose by some of the most manipulative personalities known, psychopathic sexual sadists and murderers. Murders who repeatedly and conveniently evidence, for the first time, multiple personality disorders, when interviewed by these two. Performances which are encouraged and almost welcomed with glee. If you want to watch something that will strip you of any faith you might have in defense "experts," watch this. This is the definition of confirmation bias in quasi-science.
Very sad
ozrenk28 November 2020
Very sad how the society in USA failed so many times to acknowledge the bipolar person's disorder as a psychiatric illness and instead of that went on killing rampage of those individuals. Crimes they did were horrible, but the punishment was even worse, since the system knew what is happening, but they sure did not.
Doesn't present as scientifically objective
annamlee-8157721 November 2020
Super interesting topic. Not saying her work isn't valid, but how it's presented is one-sided. Knowing it is a highly divisive area of psychology, no scrutinizing opposing views are explored. It's difficult to take the content as unbiased - even if they're on to something. I didn't get anything out of it. The doctor seems like a sweet lady and I do appreciate her humanitarian approach.
Showing how a system cannot withstand science's advances
sebasgarcam19 February 2022
A documentary on confirmation bias
jmllr89-303-51867622 November 2020
Every suspect examined by Dorothy seems to magically fit into her mold of what DID is, and in turn justify her own existence. The documentary conveniently frames a world around her extreme bias and lack of scientific approach. For example, the doc seemed to have forgotten to mention the fact that Arthur Shawcross would return to the bodies he dumped and made it seem like he would have seizures, kill someone, and wake up not knowing what had happened, even though he would dispose of the body and return for sexual gratification. He also a pathological liar and would play into anything that would benefit him, including playing along with Dorothy's suggestions of DID. It was actually cringeworthy watching a woman romanticize serial killers and then form her own narrative to justify these romantic interests. The rest of the movie follows suit and is a repeat of these blunders. It is no wonder she was never taken seriously in court even though the doc did it's best to frame it as not at all her fault. Great movie to watch if you are interested in seeing how not to be a psychiatrist.
Dr Lewis Resume
mgalligan-580746 January 2021
This documentary provided little insight into the study of the disassociative mind but rather highlighted Dr. Lewis's view of her most spectacular interactions with famous murderers. The documentary managed to turn a fascinating subject into a 😴.
A stigmatizing "documentary"
fwznqknk13 December 2020
90% of violent crimes are committed by people who do not have any history of serious mental illnesses. I'm pretty sure people suffering with serious mental illnesses are actually more likely to be the victims rather than perpetrators of violent crimes. I can't believe film makers didn't do a preliminary moment of research and actually agreed to making this. I knew from the first 10 minutes this movie started it would be littered with false information contributing to the dangerous and offensive myths affecting the already struggling mental health community. This doctor on numerous occasions made evil synonymous with serious mental illness. My heart just broke for everyone watching this that suffers from DID or SMIs and those that have or lost loved ones that do. I could not believe this movie was made in 2020.
After watching this, I followed up with a fact check and it's absolutely riddled with misleading information or falsehoods so she can support her narrative. If these killers were just in a dissociative state, why would they be covering up and hiding their crimes?
I also found it baffling that audiences and Laura Dern just accepted the fact that this woman was painting these terrible killers to be merely victims of their conditions without even mentioning the people that they killed. Who thought this was a good idea or this woman had credibility?
Movies like this are the reason why those living with smi are estranged from their families, fired from their jobs, become homeless... The producers and filmmakers need to take some accountability for the dangerous stigma they create.
After watching this, I followed up with a fact check and it's absolutely riddled with misleading information or falsehoods so she can support her narrative. If these killers were just in a dissociative state, why would they be covering up and hiding their crimes?
I also found it baffling that audiences and Laura Dern just accepted the fact that this woman was painting these terrible killers to be merely victims of their conditions without even mentioning the people that they killed. Who thought this was a good idea or this woman had credibility?
Movies like this are the reason why those living with smi are estranged from their families, fired from their jobs, become homeless... The producers and filmmakers need to take some accountability for the dangerous stigma they create.
Entertainment Doesn't Often Equal Good Science
petrus66-439-22058924 November 2020
Practitioners like Dorothy Lewis have long been regarded as goofballs by fellow practitioners such as myself. Her bias alone makes her totally unsuitable for the forensic arena. She refuses to operate from the legal definition of sanity and instead purports to be able to identify innumerable individuals with multiple personality disorder, most of whom find themselves convicted of murder. Her "work" lacks any scientific rigor or process and is regarded as laughable by the vast majority of her colleagues. It is very sad that because of her cartoonish behavior, she has been given popular attention.
Interesting, but full of a lot of holes.
rwfanj2 December 2020
Purely an "anti death penalty" movie based on the notion that ALL murderers are brain damaged or have multiple personality/dissociative identity disorder. A lot of it is just pure BS based in nothing close to real science.
As a piece of filmmaking, it is great, but as a documentary, needs more objectivity and more PIES, more PIES, more PIES!
Shaun_of_the_Dude21 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoy Alex Gibney's works and came into this with high hopes. He's really good and does have a commanding voice and his usage of stock is inspiring to aspiring filmmakers such as I.
The subject of much of the film is interesting and it is good to see Dorothy's work as that alone is objective... in the sense of assessing determining factors that results in the downward spiral of many of her subjects.
The film touches (touches) on opposing opinions and fleshes out the criminal justice system of the United States and how it deals with areas as complex as this.
The matter is well-formed and uses all of the usual norms one would expect to see in a film of this ilk. But it only serves it's own purposes and there are times you will (as I did), mentally say "AAaaalright, yeah!" with a tilt of the head...
It's interesting that last week I watched the awful, but entertaining film 'Copycat' with Sigourney Weaver. I can't help but feel as though Copycat was somehow inspired by the core subject of this film.
But forget left or right wing politics for a second and try to ignore the personalities in this film and what you're left with is a series of monologues from murderers who are more like characters in a fictional film, a film that is a pastiche of others that came before it.
On a personal note, these "men" may well be the product of shattered nurturing... But if they have all been manipulated by the parental/love figures in their lives, they're going to use that manipulation, especially if they're given a stage and somewhat given a lifeline. As black and white as that seems, it's important to remember that Psychology is a business like any other, and required a self-sustaining income like any other business. There were a number of statements within this film that are just plain subjective - things like "The Death Penalty isn't a deterrent", how can you quantify such a statement from such a narrow, narrow sample of people?
This is a bit of a miss for me and if you're reading this review in order to quantify whether this is worth your time... Well, yes, it may well be, but never forget that whatever situation many of the characters are in, at the end of the day, they still have to pay their bills and buy MORE PIES, MORE PIES, MORE PIES... (If you do watch it, 'More PIES' is the crux of the film and by far the most entertaining trifle in this film)
BUT! I've seen enough bad acting (and done some) in my time to know when someone is performing. I suspect in her heart of hearts, she may have suspected as much from moon fringe - but what the hell, it'll make good TV some day. That is not to mock her work, but if you look closely, I swear you can see Dorothy's head tilt to one side in what I can only imagine to be projected embarrassment on behalf of the subject.
There's a phenomenon called 100/1000 monkey syndrome. And we as humans are made to imitate and copy. There was a statement that made me think which went something like 'Serial Killers or murders are not made'. And this statement goes against a notion I've had clinking around in my brain for a good while now. But for me, this statement is not a far cry from the 'talent delusion' - there's no such thing as 'talent', it's all about practice, time and will to do what the next person won't.
I just wonder if Dorothy ever asked her subjects if they thought they were talented or not, and if so, what in. Because I could point her in any direction of 'talented' actors who could play the role of a man who thinks he can get away with murder. Only, some can do it with their eyes open and finite direction, whilst others will close their eyes and go with the flow and thrive on the 'cop in the head'.
Watch for insight - but you might not get the insight you first assumed or hoped for. Plus, Dorothy, with respect, is batty a psychic aunt and this film does make you want to explore her world from her own point of view.
Good luck.
The subject of much of the film is interesting and it is good to see Dorothy's work as that alone is objective... in the sense of assessing determining factors that results in the downward spiral of many of her subjects.
The film touches (touches) on opposing opinions and fleshes out the criminal justice system of the United States and how it deals with areas as complex as this.
The matter is well-formed and uses all of the usual norms one would expect to see in a film of this ilk. But it only serves it's own purposes and there are times you will (as I did), mentally say "AAaaalright, yeah!" with a tilt of the head...
It's interesting that last week I watched the awful, but entertaining film 'Copycat' with Sigourney Weaver. I can't help but feel as though Copycat was somehow inspired by the core subject of this film.
But forget left or right wing politics for a second and try to ignore the personalities in this film and what you're left with is a series of monologues from murderers who are more like characters in a fictional film, a film that is a pastiche of others that came before it.
On a personal note, these "men" may well be the product of shattered nurturing... But if they have all been manipulated by the parental/love figures in their lives, they're going to use that manipulation, especially if they're given a stage and somewhat given a lifeline. As black and white as that seems, it's important to remember that Psychology is a business like any other, and required a self-sustaining income like any other business. There were a number of statements within this film that are just plain subjective - things like "The Death Penalty isn't a deterrent", how can you quantify such a statement from such a narrow, narrow sample of people?
This is a bit of a miss for me and if you're reading this review in order to quantify whether this is worth your time... Well, yes, it may well be, but never forget that whatever situation many of the characters are in, at the end of the day, they still have to pay their bills and buy MORE PIES, MORE PIES, MORE PIES... (If you do watch it, 'More PIES' is the crux of the film and by far the most entertaining trifle in this film)
BUT! I've seen enough bad acting (and done some) in my time to know when someone is performing. I suspect in her heart of hearts, she may have suspected as much from moon fringe - but what the hell, it'll make good TV some day. That is not to mock her work, but if you look closely, I swear you can see Dorothy's head tilt to one side in what I can only imagine to be projected embarrassment on behalf of the subject.
There's a phenomenon called 100/1000 monkey syndrome. And we as humans are made to imitate and copy. There was a statement that made me think which went something like 'Serial Killers or murders are not made'. And this statement goes against a notion I've had clinking around in my brain for a good while now. But for me, this statement is not a far cry from the 'talent delusion' - there's no such thing as 'talent', it's all about practice, time and will to do what the next person won't.
I just wonder if Dorothy ever asked her subjects if they thought they were talented or not, and if so, what in. Because I could point her in any direction of 'talented' actors who could play the role of a man who thinks he can get away with murder. Only, some can do it with their eyes open and finite direction, whilst others will close their eyes and go with the flow and thrive on the 'cop in the head'.
Watch for insight - but you might not get the insight you first assumed or hoped for. Plus, Dorothy, with respect, is batty a psychic aunt and this film does make you want to explore her world from her own point of view.
Good luck.
What a bunch of boloney
eakogan4 February 2021
Is this a documentary, or an advertisement for a person? Alex Gibney has really gone downhill as of late. This "Dr." is a pusher of junk science, and a super gullible individual to boot. Even I could tell that the criminals she interviewed were playing with her, how could she not notice that?
Also, Johnny Frank Garrett is an almost certainly an innocent man wrongfully executed by the State of TX. There is a ton of material on line about him, yet she keeps talking about him as though he were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! Has she not kept up with the cases that she participated in? That is shoddy work at best.
Hocus pocus.
twominds7913 February 2022
Every cold blood serial killer pines for a dr.lewis . A doctor who will believe anything and everything they are told .
Usually by manipulative people doing life with nothing to lose.
Fortunately we get the shawcross debacle and Dr. Park Dietz and his voice of reason .
Surprisingly her credibility returned after 3 years when really she should have been blacklisted.
Usually by manipulative people doing life with nothing to lose.
Fortunately we get the shawcross debacle and Dr. Park Dietz and his voice of reason .
Surprisingly her credibility returned after 3 years when really she should have been blacklisted.
Presenting confirmation bias through sincere efforts
lu_lou_belle4 October 2022
This wasn't going to be good work without more academic and research context in the history of trends in osychological treatment modalities. Considering when this Doctor was making a name for herself, I'm gobsmacked by the hagiographic tendencies. Afterall, the 80's and 90's were satanic panic time, the the mental health and social services fields at the time have alot to answer for in the rush to diagnose and often condemn based on confirmation bias, while giddily handing out Seratonin regulators as the miracle drug for a world in existential crises..
Whatever the point of this documentary, the subject matter certainly is worthy of a more nuanced and critical eye, regardless of any overarching point about the irrational and inhumane way capital punishment is meted out in this country, how mental illness is dealt with in the carceral context, and where our social evolution is pointing. It's not even a very complete basic biography of the clinician's life and work. The brief snippets of interviews with her two colleagues offered nothing to the telling.
There is a reason hypnosis and multiple personality disorder diagnoses are regarded as incredibly controversial and dubious. I feel confident that Gibney know this, so why did this undeveloped mess get produced? All you have to do is look at the thoroughness of Crime of the Century to know what he's capable of.
Whatever the point of this documentary, the subject matter certainly is worthy of a more nuanced and critical eye, regardless of any overarching point about the irrational and inhumane way capital punishment is meted out in this country, how mental illness is dealt with in the carceral context, and where our social evolution is pointing. It's not even a very complete basic biography of the clinician's life and work. The brief snippets of interviews with her two colleagues offered nothing to the telling.
There is a reason hypnosis and multiple personality disorder diagnoses are regarded as incredibly controversial and dubious. I feel confident that Gibney know this, so why did this undeveloped mess get produced? All you have to do is look at the thoroughness of Crime of the Century to know what he's capable of.
Garbage in, garbage out
billyfriedrich15 August 2021
The "research" presented by this doctor is not objective. Her opinions are biasing any work she's done here. Another crusader, excusing abhorrent behavior. DID is questionable at best, and very likely does not exist. How could a serial murderer be able to elude authorities, keep it from friends and family?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
