Why I Can Watch Dhurandhar's Gore But Not Stranger Things

Something strange happened when I walked out of the theater after watching Dhurandhar. I'd just sat through 214 minutes of intense violence, covert operations, underworld brutality, and what reviewers described as "gory" sequences—and I was completely engaged. Yet when friends suggested we binge-watch Stranger Things or catch up on Game of Thrones, I found myself making excuses. The thought of settling in for multiple episodes filled me with an inexplicable resistance bordering on anxiety.

Was this ADHD? Some neurological quirk that made my brain process different types of visual media differently? Or was something deeper at play—patterns woven into my psychological fabric during childhood that now dictated what I could and couldn't watch?

As both someone experiencing this puzzling phenomenon and as a mental health professional who's explored these questions with clients, I've discovered the answer lies not in attention disorders but in the intricate architecture of our early psychological programming and how we learned to process narrative, threat, and emotional engagement.

The Personal Puzzle: Why Movies Work But Series Don't

The disparity in my viewing patterns became impossible to ignore. I could handle Dhurandhar's unflinching portrayal of the ISI-underworld nexus, the strategic violence, the political tension—all compressed into one sitting. The three-and-a-half-hour runtime that some found challenging felt manageable to me. I left the theater emotionally satisfied, the story complete, the door closed.

But suggest a television series—even ones friends raved about—and something in me recoiled. It wasn't the content itself. Stranger Things has supernatural horror; Dhurandhar has realistic brutality. Game of Thrones has medieval violence; Dhurandhar has contemporary warfare. The violence wasn't the variable. The format was.

Initially, I wondered if this was an attention span issue. Had years of smartphone use and social media shortened my capacity for sustained engagement? Was this ADHD manifesting in middle age? The mental health professional in me knew this didn't fit the typical presentation of attention-deficit disorders, which would more likely struggle with the demanding focus required for a three-hour film than with episodic content designed for easier consumption.

The answer, I discovered, lay not in neurological dysfunction but in psychological architecture—specifically, in the unconscious patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that were established when I was young and continue influencing my choices today.

The Architecture of Childhood Programming

From infancy through early childhood, we develop internal frameworks for understanding the world. These aren't conscious decisions but absorbed patterns from our environment—particularly from parental figures and other authority influences. These frameworks include beliefs about completion, control, safety, and how stories should unfold.

In my case, growing up in a household where my father worked long hours and weekends were precious, entertainment had a specific structure. Movies were events—planned, contained, with clear beginnings and endings. We'd go to the theater or occasionally watch a film at home, but it was an experience with boundaries. Television was different: background noise, interrupted by dinner or bedtime, rarely followed consistently.

More significantly, my parents' approach to media consumption carried implicit messages. My mother would say things like, "We'll watch this and then it's done, back to real life." There was an unconscious equation: contained entertainment equals healthy boundaries; ongoing serial entertainment equals avoidance of responsibilities. These weren't lectures—they were atmospheric messages absorbed without critical thought, the kind that shape our internal guidance system.

This early programming created what we might call an internal "rule book"—unconscious beliefs about what's acceptable, what's responsible, and what feels "right." When I consider watching a series, I'm not just making a rational choice about entertainment. I'm bumping against an old internal message that says: "Ongoing commitments to fictional worlds mean you're avoiding real life."

The Three Modes of Experiencing Media

Understanding my viewing preferences required recognizing that at any moment, we operate from one of three distinct psychological modes, each with its own way of thinking, feeling, and relating to experiences.

• The first mode contains the internalized voices of authority—all those "shoulds" and "oughts" we absorbed from parents, teachers, and culture. This mode judges, criticizes, nurtures, or sets standards. It's the voice that says, "Productive people don't waste hours on TV shows" or "You should be reading, not watching screens."

• The second mode is our capacity for rational, present-moment processing. It assesses situations based on current data, thinks logically about options, and responds to the here-and-now without contamination from past programming or emotional reactivity.

• The third mode holds our spontaneous emotional responses, our creativity, our playfulness—but also our old wounds and adaptive strategies. It's where we feel curiosity and joy, but also where ancient fears and learned responses live.

When I sit down to watch Dhurandhar, I'm predominantly in that second mode—the rational, adult part of me making a conscious choice about a contained experience. The film has boundaries: a beginning, middle, and end. I can plan for it. I know the commitment. My internal authority figures approve because it's time-limited and therefore "responsible."

But when I consider starting a television series, something shifts. The first mode—those internalized parental voices—activates with messages absorbed decades ago: "This is how people waste their lives." "You'll get sucked in and neglect important things." "This is how you avoid dealing with real issues."

Simultaneously, the third mode—my emotional, childlike response system—remembers being interrupted during shows as a kid, the frustration of cliffhangers, the anxiety of not knowing when episodes would air, the feeling of being at the mercy of a schedule I couldn't control.

The Completion Contract and Control

There's another dimension to this puzzle: the psychological need for completion and control that many of us develop based on early experiences.

My childhood included several experiences of interrupted narratives. We'd start watching a TV series, then my father's work schedule would change and we'd miss episodes. Before streaming, this meant losing the thread entirely. I remember the specific frustration of being invested in a story that remained forever unresolved in my mind—the cognitive and emotional discomfort of unfinished business.

These experiences created what psychologists might call a "life script"—an unconscious belief system about how things unfold and what's safe. My script says: "If you can't control the entire experience from beginning to end, don't start. Interrupted narratives equal emotional distress."

Movies fulfill this script beautifully. The runtime is known. The story concludes. I control when I watch it. There's no waiting, no cliffhangers extending beyond my tolerance, no risk of cancellation leaving the narrative permanently unresolved.

Television series violate this script systematically. Even with streaming allowing binge-watching, the structure itself triggers old anxiety: multiple episodes mean multiple potential interruption points. Seasons end on cliffhangers. Shows get cancelled. The narrative might never resolve. My unconscious whispers, "Remember how unsatisfying that feels? Protect yourself—don't get invested."

This isn't ADHD. It's a sophisticated defense mechanism developed in response to specific childhood experiences, now operating automatically to prevent re-experiencing old frustrations.

The Violence Variable: Why Gore in Movies Feels Different

An interesting aspect of my viewing pattern is that violence itself isn't the issue. Dhurandhar's brutality and "gory" scenes weren't triggers for discomfort. Why?

The answer relates to emotional engagement and duration. In a film, intense violence serves the narrative arc and moves toward resolution within a contained timeframe. My nervous system can tolerate the activation because I know relief is coming—the credits will roll, the lights will come up, the experience will end.

In a series, violence or horror becomes an ongoing state. Each episode might resolve a small conflict, but the larger threat persists across multiple installments. My nervous system has learned to interpret this as, "You're signing up for prolonged stress with no guaranteed resolution."

Additionally, my early programming included specific messages about violence in media. My parents were selective about what we watched but pragmatic. If violence served a story that concluded—war films, action movies with clear victories—that was acceptable. But ongoing exposure to disturbing content was framed as psychologically unhealthy. Again, an atmospheric message rather than an explicit rule, but one that shaped my internal permissions.

Is This ADHD or Something Else?

Clients often ask me whether their media consumption patterns indicate ADHD, especially when they notice difficulty sustaining attention or unusual preferences. While ADHD absolutely affects how people engage with media, the patterns differ from what I've described.

ADHD typically involves:

• Difficulty maintaining focus during longer, slower-paced content

• Preference for high-stimulation, fast-cut editing

• Challenges starting AND finishing content

• Distractibility rather than avoidance

• Similar patterns across formats (both movies and series affected)

My pattern—and similar patterns I've observed in clients—shows something different:

• Ability to focus intensely when format feels "safe"

• Avoidance specific to open-ended formats

• Completion of long content when boundaries are clear

• Anxiety about commitment rather than attention difficulties

• Format-specific responses rooted in meaning, not stimulation needs

This points to psychological conditioning rather than neurological wiring. It's learned behavior, not a developmental disorder. The good news? Learned patterns can be examined, understood, and gradually shifted if desired.

The Mental Health Implications

Understanding these viewing preferences has broader implications for mental health and self-awareness. Our entertainment choices aren't trivial—they reveal deeper patterns about how we relate to commitment, control, completion, and emotional engagement.

For some people, the inability to enjoy serialized content might indicate anxiety about ongoing commitments or unresolved issues around follow-through and completion. For others, it might reflect legitimate self-knowledge about their capacity for sustained emotional investment.

The key questions aren't "What's wrong with me?" but rather:

• Does this pattern serve me or limit me?

• Does it reflect genuine self-knowledge or unconscious restriction?

• Am I avoiding something that would actually enrich my life?

• Or am I honoring authentic preferences shaped by my history?

In my case, I've recognized that while my childhood programming created this pattern, it doesn't significantly limit my life. I enjoy films, I don't feel I'm missing out, and my preference doesn't stem from unresolved trauma requiring processing. It's simply how my system organized itself based on early experiences.

However, I've had clients whose similar patterns DO create limitations—avoiding any commitment because childhood taught them that starting things leads to disappointment, or rigidly controlling all experiences to avoid anxiety. In these cases, the patterns themselves become therapeutic targets, not because there's anything wrong with preferring movies over series, but because the underlying beliefs create broader life restrictions.

The Professional Perspective: Helping Clients Understand Their Patterns

As a mental health professional, I've learned to ask curious questions when clients mention their media consumption patterns, especially when they seem puzzled by their own preferences. These patterns often reveal important information about:

Early programming about leisure and productivity: What messages did you receive about entertainment? Was play encouraged or discouraged? Were there implicit beliefs about "wasting time"?

1. Completion needs and tolerance for ambiguity: How comfortable are you with open-ended situations? Do you need clear endpoints? How do you handle uncertainty?

2. Control and predictability: What role does knowing the outcome play in your comfort? How do you respond when you can't control pacing or timing?

3. Emotional regulation capacity: How do you manage sustained emotional activation? Do you prefer intense, short experiences or moderate, prolonged ones?

4. Narrative resolution needs: How important is closure to you? What happens when stories remain unfinished?

These questions often open doors to understanding much more than media preferences—they illuminate core psychological patterns affecting relationships, career choices, and life satisfaction.

Moving Forward: Working With, Not Against, Your Patterns

Understanding the roots of my viewing preferences hasn't "fixed" them, nor should it. The goal isn't to force myself to enjoy television series or to pathologize my preference for films. Instead, awareness brings freedom—the ability to recognize when my responses come from old programming versus present choice.

Now when friends suggest watching a series, I can say with confidence: "That's not really my format preference, but I appreciate the suggestion." I'm not judging myself as deficient or worrying that something's wrong with my attention span. I understand my pattern, respect its origins, and make conscious choices rather than unconsciously avoiding based on old messages.

If you recognize similar patterns in yourself, consider:

1. Explore without judgment: Get curious about your preferences. What do they reveal about your early experiences and current needs?

2. Distinguish anxiety from authentic preference: Does avoiding certain formats create relief or limitation? Are you honoring genuine preferences or running from old fears?

3. Experiment gently: If you suspect your patterns are restrictive, try small experiments. Watch one or two episodes of something low-stakes. Notice what arises—is it old programming talking, or genuine disinterest?

4. Seek professional support if patterns feel restricting: If you notice your viewing preferences reflect broader patterns of avoiding commitment, needing excessive control, or fearing incompletion, therapy might help explore these themes.

The Bottom Line: Patterns Are Personal, Not Pathological

Can I watch Dhurandhar's intense violence while finding Stranger Things unwatchable? Yes. Is this ADHD? No. It's the sophisticated result of early psychological programming—messages about completion, control, responsible entertainment, and narrative structure absorbed in childhood and now operating automatically to shape my preferences.

These patterns don't need fixing unless they create genuine limitation. They're simply part of how our unique histories shape our present experience. By understanding rather than judging them, we gain the freedom to work with our psychological architecture rather than against it.

The next time you notice a puzzling preference in your life—whether about media, food, relationships, or work—get curious. Chances are, there's a fascinating story beneath it, rooted in your early experiences and revealing something important about how you've learned to navigate the world. That's not pathology—that's the beautiful complexity of being human.

And sometimes, that just means preferring a three-hour film about underworld operations to a multi-season series about supernatural mysteries. Both are valid. Both make sense. And both reflect the intricate ways our past continues shaping our present, one viewing choice at a time.

‍