The medical case of Franz Breundl, centered on a debate about the origins of his short-term memory disorder, became a major focus in Europe between 1926 and 1958. While some, like Professor Martin Reichardt’s team at the University of Würzburg, argued that it was an organic disease, others, such as neurologist Fritz Lotmar, suggested a psychological basis, open to psychoanalytic interpretation. Two key films from the Waldau collection, made by German psychiatrists Ernst Grünthal and Gustav E. Störring, offer insights into the political and ideological tensions underlying this medical controversy. These films, produced between 1927-1932 and 1935, circulated within the medical community, highlighting the conflict between scientific and ideological interpretations of Breundl’s condition. Historians have often framed the Breundl case as a theoretical and scientific disagreement, but I will argue it is also a social and political phenomenon shaped by the cinematic practices of psychiatrists. The case reveals how research film in psychiatry, beyond being a tool for scientific inquiry, can become a contested site of interpretation. This is particularly evident after World War II, when debates erupted over whether Breundl was a medical “prodigy of nature” or the victim of a degrading cinematic spectacle. The controversy over Störring's 1935 film (produced at UFA studios), highlights the divide between respect for reality and mystification, echoing Siegfried Kracauer’s critique of Nazi propaganda films. This study adopts an interdisciplinary approach that combines film analysis, historical research and theoretical frameworks from useful cinema and the history of science. By examining the interplay between filmic practices and medical discourses, the analysis seeks to uncover how film not only reflects but also shapes scientific and ideological debates.