This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/05/bipolar-disorder-grim-famous

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Severe depression is hell – even if you are famous Severe depression is hell – even if you are famous
(5 months later)
A new book, Strictly Bipolar by Darian Leader, in part examines the "rebranding" of depression, almost as a lifestyle term, which seems rather timely. Certainly, I've come to wonder if the term "bipolar" has become a trigger for automatic compassion fatigue.A new book, Strictly Bipolar by Darian Leader, in part examines the "rebranding" of depression, almost as a lifestyle term, which seems rather timely. Certainly, I've come to wonder if the term "bipolar" has become a trigger for automatic compassion fatigue.
A while ago, bipolar sufferer Kerry Katona's drunken meltdown on morning television was sneered at with a viciousness that, at the time, seemed class-based, but now I wouldn't be so sure. These days, I would wonder if it were also her bipolar condition being mocked – just because people are "so tired" of bipolar being "everywhere", or, more specifically, celebrity bipolar sufferers being everywhere.A while ago, bipolar sufferer Kerry Katona's drunken meltdown on morning television was sneered at with a viciousness that, at the time, seemed class-based, but now I wouldn't be so sure. These days, I would wonder if it were also her bipolar condition being mocked – just because people are "so tired" of bipolar being "everywhere", or, more specifically, celebrity bipolar sufferers being everywhere.
Only last week, Ronnie O'Sullivan, who suffers from depression, was back playing snooker, and ended up being reprimanded for making an "obscene gesture" at fellow player Judd Trump. Meanwhile, when Catherine Zeta-Jones checked into a clinic for "maintenance" of her bipolar disorder on Monday, the news was treated almost as if she'd swanned off on a Caribbean cruise, rather than made the mature decision to try to regulate her illness.Only last week, Ronnie O'Sullivan, who suffers from depression, was back playing snooker, and ended up being reprimanded for making an "obscene gesture" at fellow player Judd Trump. Meanwhile, when Catherine Zeta-Jones checked into a clinic for "maintenance" of her bipolar disorder on Monday, the news was treated almost as if she'd swanned off on a Caribbean cruise, rather than made the mature decision to try to regulate her illness.
These people, and many more, including Stephen Fry (although he refers to himself as "bipolar-lite"), tick the boxes for the public perception of bipolar – as in, they have the condition but they are also famous and blessed with creativity and charisma.These people, and many more, including Stephen Fry (although he refers to himself as "bipolar-lite"), tick the boxes for the public perception of bipolar – as in, they have the condition but they are also famous and blessed with creativity and charisma.
Some might say that manic depression, the old term for bipolar, never had it this good. But in terms of public perception, maybe it would be more accurate to say it never had it this bad (hostile, sneering, disbelieving) either.Some might say that manic depression, the old term for bipolar, never had it this good. But in terms of public perception, maybe it would be more accurate to say it never had it this bad (hostile, sneering, disbelieving) either.
Indeed, some (mocking, eye-rolling) attitudes towards bipolar are deeply worrying and they all seem to stem from contempt for the famous. As some have rightly stressed, including Alastair Campbell, bipolar is not an illness exclusive to celebrities. However, the fact remains that some famous people are sufferers and it seems not only unkind but also illogical to presume they are suffering any less than other people with the condition.Indeed, some (mocking, eye-rolling) attitudes towards bipolar are deeply worrying and they all seem to stem from contempt for the famous. As some have rightly stressed, including Alastair Campbell, bipolar is not an illness exclusive to celebrities. However, the fact remains that some famous people are sufferers and it seems not only unkind but also illogical to presume they are suffering any less than other people with the condition.
Where does it end? As it becomes ingrained in the public psyche that bipolar is mainly a fashionable diagnosis beloved by celebrities who love to drone on about it in memoirs ("You're nothing these days without a dash of bipolar, darling!"), how does this affect the ordinary sufferer?Where does it end? As it becomes ingrained in the public psyche that bipolar is mainly a fashionable diagnosis beloved by celebrities who love to drone on about it in memoirs ("You're nothing these days without a dash of bipolar, darling!"), how does this affect the ordinary sufferer?
Well, perhaps by generating a whole new level of stigma, indeed a state of double stigma. Not just the one usually attached to the mentally ill (that they are different, dangerous, frightening) but also that those with bipolar are probably just over-diagnosed, over-indulged, attention-seeking fakes. And that, by association, bipolar somehow isn't real enough, not like other mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.Well, perhaps by generating a whole new level of stigma, indeed a state of double stigma. Not just the one usually attached to the mentally ill (that they are different, dangerous, frightening) but also that those with bipolar are probably just over-diagnosed, over-indulged, attention-seeking fakes. And that, by association, bipolar somehow isn't real enough, not like other mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.
With fame, any kind of mistrust or ridicule is obviously magnified but this has to be having a drip-down effect on ordinary people with bipolar disorder. If high-profile sufferers are mocked, and barely believed, then what hope is there for the unmoneyed and unknown? (Anyone claiming that the ordinary sufferer would probably be more respected and better treated is being frighteningly naive.) The whole mess is further aggravated because famous bipolar sufferers are damned if they talk about their illness and damned if they don't. The irony is that they are the only mental health sufferers who could guarantee getting any airtime.With fame, any kind of mistrust or ridicule is obviously magnified but this has to be having a drip-down effect on ordinary people with bipolar disorder. If high-profile sufferers are mocked, and barely believed, then what hope is there for the unmoneyed and unknown? (Anyone claiming that the ordinary sufferer would probably be more respected and better treated is being frighteningly naive.) The whole mess is further aggravated because famous bipolar sufferers are damned if they talk about their illness and damned if they don't. The irony is that they are the only mental health sufferers who could guarantee getting any airtime.
Perhaps it's time to check ourselves when we start rolling our eyes about "yet another bipolar celebrity". While famous people have money and access to therapies for this complex and hideous condition, they're also lightning rods for myriad prejudices that too often seem just a new, sly way to bully and belittle mentally ill people. It wouldn't hurt to remember this when we hear about the likes of Zeta-Jones checking into a clinic – any human sympathy we feel for her can only be a positive thing for her non-famous counterparts.Perhaps it's time to check ourselves when we start rolling our eyes about "yet another bipolar celebrity". While famous people have money and access to therapies for this complex and hideous condition, they're also lightning rods for myriad prejudices that too often seem just a new, sly way to bully and belittle mentally ill people. It wouldn't hurt to remember this when we hear about the likes of Zeta-Jones checking into a clinic – any human sympathy we feel for her can only be a positive thing for her non-famous counterparts.
There is nothing like a sexist DaneThere is nothing like a sexist Dane
When you think of Danish television, you probably think of The Killing or Borgen – not two Danish Jeremy Clarksons giggling at a woman standing naked before them, appraising her physique, with comments about pubic grooming and "animated nipples".When you think of Danish television, you probably think of The Killing or Borgen – not two Danish Jeremy Clarksons giggling at a woman standing naked before them, appraising her physique, with comments about pubic grooming and "animated nipples".
This is what's happening on the chat show Blachman, where the eponymous host (Thomas, also a Danish X Factor judge) sits with a male guest, critiquing naked women. Come to think of it, Clarkson wouldn't stoop this low; he'd at least make the women drape themselves over a Lamborghini first.This is what's happening on the chat show Blachman, where the eponymous host (Thomas, also a Danish X Factor judge) sits with a male guest, critiquing naked women. Come to think of it, Clarkson wouldn't stoop this low; he'd at least make the women drape themselves over a Lamborghini first.
It sounds like a spoof or a commissioning dare. No such luck. Defending his concept, Blachman declared: "The female body thirsts for words, the words of a man." Well, yes, Thomas, but in your case, only if those words are: "I'm a belly-crawling chauvinist throwback and I'm going to plunge my genitalia into a vat of boiling tar by way of penance."It sounds like a spoof or a commissioning dare. No such luck. Defending his concept, Blachman declared: "The female body thirsts for words, the words of a man." Well, yes, Thomas, but in your case, only if those words are: "I'm a belly-crawling chauvinist throwback and I'm going to plunge my genitalia into a vat of boiling tar by way of penance."
To Blachman, the show is "a way of discussing the aesthetics of a female body without allowing the conversation to become pornographic or PC". Fascinating, but why so shy? For instance, why don't Blachman and his giggling mates appear naked, so that women could discuss their aesthetics, without allowing the conversation to become pornographic, PC … or pitying or, indeed, vomiting?To Blachman, the show is "a way of discussing the aesthetics of a female body without allowing the conversation to become pornographic or PC". Fascinating, but why so shy? For instance, why don't Blachman and his giggling mates appear naked, so that women could discuss their aesthetics, without allowing the conversation to become pornographic, PC … or pitying or, indeed, vomiting?
The worst thing about all this is that it's nothing new. Arguably, the show is merely an amplification of the general sexism riddling popular culture. Which, in television terms, means objectifying women, reducing them to their looks, then judging and belittling them. The only difference is that (usually) the women get to keep their clothes on. So, Danish or not, Misogyny TV isn't a new concept – Blachman's version is just that little bit more direct.The worst thing about all this is that it's nothing new. Arguably, the show is merely an amplification of the general sexism riddling popular culture. Which, in television terms, means objectifying women, reducing them to their looks, then judging and belittling them. The only difference is that (usually) the women get to keep their clothes on. So, Danish or not, Misogyny TV isn't a new concept – Blachman's version is just that little bit more direct.
Forever isn't a very long time for the Spice GirlsForever isn't a very long time for the Spice Girls
The Spice Girls musical Viva Forever! is closing after six months in the West End, with the people behind it mystified because of the success of the likes of We Will Rock You and Mamma Mia! (which shares a producer, Judy Craymer, with Viva).The Spice Girls musical Viva Forever! is closing after six months in the West End, with the people behind it mystified because of the success of the likes of We Will Rock You and Mamma Mia! (which shares a producer, Judy Craymer, with Viva).
I once had the misfortune of reviewing some "jukebox musicals", emerging baffled by the success of any of them. Mamma Mia! was like a mangled lost episode of Eldorado, complete with tinny renditions of Abba classics. WWRY, while better, was akin to being yelled at in a pub by a drunk Queen fan for three-plus hours.I once had the misfortune of reviewing some "jukebox musicals", emerging baffled by the success of any of them. Mamma Mia! was like a mangled lost episode of Eldorado, complete with tinny renditions of Abba classics. WWRY, while better, was akin to being yelled at in a pub by a drunk Queen fan for three-plus hours.
What saved both these shows was that the bands and their songs were genuinely loved. By contrast, the Spice Girls were a hugely influential phenomenon, but loved, in that rare, enduring way? I wouldn't have thought so.What saved both these shows was that the bands and their songs were genuinely loved. By contrast, the Spice Girls were a hugely influential phenomenon, but loved, in that rare, enduring way? I wouldn't have thought so.
The "warm-glow" factor just wasn't there for the Spices, as it is for Abba and Queen. Anyone staging a jukebox musical first needs to understand the crucial difference between a hugely successful band and a much loved and missed one. By this criterion, it's far more surprising that the Madness musical Our House didn't survive.The "warm-glow" factor just wasn't there for the Spices, as it is for Abba and Queen. Anyone staging a jukebox musical first needs to understand the crucial difference between a hugely successful band and a much loved and missed one. By this criterion, it's far more surprising that the Madness musical Our House didn't survive.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.