OpEd: Where Lucy Liu’s ‘Rosemead’ missed the boat

Psychiatric Reflections on Rosemead: What to Take In—and What Not to Take Away

By Dr. Ivy Song and Dr. Steve Sust

As interest grows around Asian American mental health, many viewers are planning to watch the film Rosemead. As psychiatrists, we offer the following reflections—based on clinical experience and our interpretation of the film’s messages—to help audiences engage with the movie thoughtfully. Rosemead invites difficult conversations. Watching it with awareness of implicit biases and discernment allows those conversations to lead toward understanding, compassion, and better care for those experiencing psychosis.

(Warning: This story includes some plot spoilers)

Rosemead depicts an Asian American teenage boy (Joe as played by Lawrence Shou) diagnosed with schizophrenia. His mother (Irene as played by Lucy Liu) seeks help through psychotherapy and psychiatry but feels overwhelmed by stigma and fear.

From a psychiatric perspective, here are several important considerations:

First, although Joe is labeled as having schizophrenia, the diagnosis is not entirely clear. His symptoms emerge after his father’s death and largely consist of flashbacks, dissociation, derealization, and auditory experiences tied to trauma. His worsening symptoms closely follow additional traumatic events—news of Irene’s health and an active-shooter drill—raising the possibility that trauma plays a significant role in his presentation.

Second, the film suggests that Irene is unable to find help. In reality, Joe is receiving substantial support: a highly involved therapist, psychiatric care, and opportunities for higher levels of care. These caring resources exceed what many patients have access to. The tragedy unfolds not from the absence of help, but from mistrust, dismissal of professional guidance, and missed opportunities to accept that help.

Third, the film risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes. There is no evidence that schizophrenia itself increases gun violence, and studies suggest that patients with psychosis are at greater risk of being victims of gun violence. The character’s fixation on firearms could more plausibly reflect trauma and fear following a school shooting drill. Other dramatized behaviors—dark drawings or agitation—are cinematic tropes rather than diagnostic indicators.

Key takeaways from the film include:

• Miscommunication can be just as harmful as silence. Withholding information, minimizing concerns, or avoiding difficult conversations—particularly around illness—can erode trust and rapport. The film repeatedly shows a parent unable to be honest and emotionally transparent with her child.
• Help exists, but it must come from the right sources: mental health professionals, school counselors, social workers, and emergency services. Family and friends cannot replace trained care, and involving other children in crisis situations—as depicted in the film—can be unsafe.
• Early warning signs matter. Cognitive and functional changes—such as unsafe behaviors or declining judgment—deserve prompt attention. Dismissing them as “carelessness” can delay critical intervention.
• Finally, bystander comments and community gossip can deepen shame when caring support is needed. While stigma exists, support may be more present than expected. Protecting a loved one’s wellbeing must come before others’ opinions.

Rosemead’s production team deserves applause for bravely depicting an early psychosis story, but this movie should be followed by more discussions among families and larger social circles which include professionals who directly interface with youth. Hopefully, diverse communities can organize together and have informed discussions about different key events in the movie, but also highlight the missed opportunities for earlier interventions. Illnesses can be naturally associated with questions and uncertainty which emphasizes the importance of building trust/rapport in order for patients to begin exploring possible options.

Beyond the resources depicted in Rosemead, there has been a growing body of scientific research around the improved outcomes from the early psychosis programs all across the world. To explore more resources, we invite communities to connect with professional organizations such as AACAP, NNCPAP, and PEPPNET/EPINET.

Example discussion questions from the film if you wish to kickstart opportunities for discussion with a relatively easy approach:

(1) If you could talk to any of the characters, who would you want to talk to and why? What would you want to say to him/her?

(2) What are situations from the movie when characters acted in empathetic ways and built rapport? Were there any situations that led to distrust?

(3) If you could rewrite the story or even a single event in it, what would you choose and why?

About the Authors:

Dr. Steve Sust: I am a community child, adolescent, and general psychiatrist who is American born Chinese. These statements are my own and do not reflect those of my employer(s) or any other organization(s). 

Dr. Ivy Song: Dr. Song completed her Doctor of Medicine degree at the University of Southern California, graduating with academic honors and a Gold humanitarian award. Dr. Song completed her post-
graduate training at UC Davis and UC Irvine, and is a staff psychiatrist at the California Department of State Hospitals. In 2022, Dr. Song participated in the
CHIPAO Sacramento performance and presented multiple publications based
on the data collected. She is passionate about Asian American mental health
and has spoken on topics such as the use of native language in psychotherapy
and the application of anime in supporting mental health among Asian teens.