According to Psychology Today, Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is defined as “rare condition in which two or more distinct identities, or personality states, are present in—and alternately take control of—an individual,” (Psychology Today, p. 1). This disorder is a defense mechanism of the brain, and often, people who develop this disorder have been through severe traumas, such as mental or physical abuse, namely sexual assault (Psychology Today, p. 1).

​

Although this disorder only affects an estimated 1% of the population, many find it to be extremely fascinating (Psychology Today, p. 1). The fascination is so strong, even, that there have been 35 different films created that depict characters suffering from DID. 

​

One man who has admitted to having a lifelong fascination with DID is Hollywood director M. Night Shyamalan (Rose, p. 1, 2017). This fascination pushed him to direct the movie, “Split,” which depicts a character who lives his life with 23 different personalities. His personalities are both men and women, old and young, mean and nice. – and for a fun exciting twist – some of them also have a tendency to kidnap and kill people.

​

Split, by example, is one of many movies that depict this disorder in such a way that causes excitement, fear, and suspense. But in the real world, this is not the case. As presented in a number of YouTube videos following the lives of people who actually suffer from DID, we learn that they are often able to go about their lives normally – with families, friends, and relationships. (See below) So why does Hollywood present DID in this way time and time again? Do they ever show any accurate portrayals of the disorder?

​

One writer, Steve Rose, doesn’t seem to think so. In an article titled, “From Split to Psycho: why cinema fails Dissociative Identity Disorder,” Rose discusses a couple of the movies that feature the disorder: Psycho, Split, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Fight Club, among others (Rose, 2017).

​

Rose states that DID is the perfect excuse to create a dynamic character – one with “extremes of behavior, conflict, torment, secrets and mysteries,” (Rose, p. 1, 2017). As I read this, the continual use of characters with DID began to make more sense to me. Hollywood directors are looking for something that is exciting and foreign to their audience and DID is the perfect doorway into that realm. One thing that I have noticed, though, is how people often don’t have a whole lot of knowledge about the disorder, and I think that this is the perfect disorder to sensationalize in film – something that people don’t know a lot about. This makes it easy for the characters to say and do anything crazy, and for the audience to then believe that this is an accurate portrayal of someone with that said disorder – which has the potential to be extremely harmful (Rose, p. 1, 2017).

​

The damage that these films have done is another thing that Rose mentions in his article.  He goes on to quote Dr. Simone Reinders, a neuroscientist studying DID at King’s College London, who says “They make it seem as if patients with DID are extremely violent and prone to doing bad things. This is actually not true and it very badly misrepresents the psychiatric disorder. Individuals with DID definitely do not have a tendency to be violent; more a tendency to hide their mental health problems. I’m very concerned about the effects that the movie will have for patients with DID, and how the general public will now see these patients. There’s already a lot of stigma and skepticism concerning this specific disorder,” (Rose, p. 1, 2017).

           

I think that this quote speaks wonders – the movie industry is pushing this disorder in the wrong direction, creating a fear of people with DID – a fear that does not necessarily need to exist.

​

​

​

​