Brilliant!
Over the past couple weeks I've heard some positive word-of-mouth reviews for a movie called Gothika, while the critical reviews have been overwhelmingly harsh. Could this mean this is a film destined to be cult status, or (more likely) this film boondocks? Frankly, I don't know because (DISCLAIMER) I haven't seen it, so perhaps one day when it's on Oxygen I'll watch it.

In case you haven't heard, Gothika is a starring vehicle for the okay-looking Halle Berry in a psychological thriller. Walter Chaw, of FilmFreakCentral.com, wrote a predictably funny and scathing review of the film, in which he notes:

"The guilty parties are obvious from the first frame on, and just the number of times Miranda [Berry] is referred to as "brilliant" should cause the least observant to cock an eyebrow."

Needless to say, Walter's a pretty astute guy. I recalled that line while biking to work today (Yes, it's 35 degrees out. Yes, I wear shorts. Yes, I hate public transportation and particularly traffic.), and it got me to thinking: How does one become a 'brilliant' psychologist? How does one establish that in film without just refering to it as fact? For instance, in your opening introductory scene for a movie with a 'brilliant' detective, you would show him (or her) being tremendously clever and of course unorthodox in solving some prologatory crime (contest! how many movies can you name in which this pattern is followed?). But how would this be established for a psychologist? Perhaps the following, in flashback:

FADE TO:
EXTERIOR: PRISON
Drisly rain falls over a grey, foreboding penitentiary. Lightning and thunder.
INTERIOR: INTERROGATION ROOM
Halle, er, Miranda is sitting in a room with two colleagues, across from Charles Manson. She is questioning him.
CHARLEY: ... So they I told them to whackity-whack-whack away.
MIRANDA: It is my clinical opinion that you are insane.
COLLEAGUE #1: Brilliant!
COLLEAGUE #2: (thoughtfully, hand stroking chin) Hmmm....

And there you go, one scenario. But before that could happen, someone had to plot the character out. For that, you have to turn to your put-upon union-grade screenwriter. Here's a likely scene for the idea germination:

FADE TO:
EXTERIOR: STUDIO LOT
Drisly rain falls over a grey, foreboding executives building. Lightning and thunder.
INTERIOR: CONFERENCE ROOM -- STUDIO LOT
Two studio heads are reviewing projects. A screenwriter (we'll call him 'Kelly') for Gothika is present.
STUDIO HEAD #1: So what else do you have going on?
STUDIO HEAD #2: Well, we just got Oscar-winner Halle Berry to star as a --
STUDIO HEAD #1: Brilliant!
STUDIO HEAD #2: -- psychologist in a new film.
HACK SCREENWRITER: (thoughtfully, hand stroking chin) Hmmm....

That's probably the case, but with such new Oscar-caliber star power, it's also possible that Halle used some creative control to foist her ideas on the poor hack screenwriter (again, Kelly). In that event, here is a dramatization of the most likely (scored a 93% probability) way in which Halle's idea about the psychologist came to fruition:

FADE TO:
EXTERIOR: MANSION
Drisly rain falls over a grey, foreboding mansion. Lightning and thunder.
INTERIOR: LIVING ROOM
Halle (dressed in underwear only, natch) is feeding her goldfish (Mr. Snookums).
HALLE: Now Mr. Snookums, I'm putting in a little extra food in case I get home late from the script meeting.
MR. SNOOKUMS: (thinking: Brilliant!)
HALLE: (thoughtfully, hand stroking chin) Hmmm....

Of course, Ms. Berry doesn't strike me as someone who would ever be typecast as a 'brilliant' anything, so hopefully this will be a rare instance of shoehorning unwarranted adjectives into a character. But unlikely.