Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | RSS
In this OD’ing on Movies episode, the hosts use the romantic comedy Merv to spotlight what it looks like when an optometrist in movies shows up on screen and what eye care details Hollywood still tends to miss. Dr. Jacobi Cleaver and Dr. Jacob Wilson are joined by Dr. Nadia Afkhami , who brings a creator’s lens to pop culture, a clinician’s lens to accuracy, and a real-world perspective as she prepares to open her own practice.
What makes this conversation work is the balance. It is light enough to feel like friends talking movies, but clinical enough to give eye care professionals practical takeaways: how patients hear “bad news,” why refraction frustration is universal, what’s “off” about the iCare scene, and how public misunderstanding of optometry can be handled without burning out.
Topics Covered:
Episode overview: why Merv made the cut
OD’ing on Movies is built on a simple premise: pick a film, watch it, and break it down through optometry. This episode’s hook is immediate—Merv includes a character who is an optometrist, and that alone makes it relevant for eye care professionals who care about how the profession is portrayed.
Dr. Nadia Afkhami heard about the movie the same way many clinicians find pop-culture optometry moments: optometry social groups. A post pointing out “she’s an optometrist in the movie” was enough to spark a watch, and then a podcast-worthy conversation. That’s the sweet spot for OD’ing on Movies—when a casual film becomes a professional mirror.
The hosts also make room for what audiences actually enjoy: personality. Dr. Nadia’s Taylor Swift fandom and content-creator background are not “side quests.” They’re reminders that optometrists are human, and patients respond to that authenticity—online and in the exam lane.
Meet Dr. Nadia Afkhami: creator to clinician
Dr. Nadia Afkhami graduated in 2022 from Western University and is currently in Las Vegas, working toward opening her own practice. Many listeners likely recognize her from social media, where she built a substantial following during her student journey, especially in the era when short-form video became the default language of the internet.
Her story matters to eye care professionals for two reasons.
First, it reflects what modern trust-building can look like. Patients and prospective patients now meet clinicians in “micro-moments”—a Reel, a comment thread, a shared post. A strong digital presence can create familiarity before the first appointment, which can reduce friction and increase confidence in care.
Second, her experience highlights the emotional reality of visibility: going viral invites criticism, and clinicians cannot afford to internalize every comment. Dr. Nadia’s takeaway is simple but practical: not every misunderstanding needs a reply, and boundaries protect longevity.
Movie breakdown: Merv in two minutes
Merv follows a couple who has already broken up and is attempting a kind of “co-parenting” arrangement—except the child is a dog named Merv. The dog’s routine is disrupted, the dog seems depressed, and the couple tries to “fix” him by navigating shared time, awkward transitions, and unresolved relationship tension.
The film leans into familiar romantic comedy patterns: other romantic interests appear, misunderstandings surface, and the couple is forced into proximity through a trip designed around the dog’s wellbeing. The emotional reveal comes later, when the true reason behind the breakup is disclosed, reframing the story as less about incompatibility and more about a painful life circumstance.
From a storytelling standpoint, the group’s main critique is structural: holding the core conflict until the end reduces investment earlier in the film. For clinicians watching, that becomes an unexpected parallel—patients disengage when they don’t understand the “why.” In movies and medicine, context changes everything.
The optometry moments: what felt real vs. unrealistic
This is where the episode becomes especially useful for eye care professionals.
The “optometrist in movies” win: optometry is visible
The simple fact that an optometrist character exists—and is known in the community (a student’s cousin has glaucoma and sees her)—is a net positive. Visibility matters, and casual story references remind the public that optometry is connected to long-term eye health, not just refractions.
The refraction realism: “both are blurry”
The refraction scene lands because it captures something universally true: patients often struggle to compare choices. The episode calls out the classic frustration—when the patient can’t decide between “one or two” and insists both are unclear.
That moment is comedic in the film, but it reflects a real clinical skill: guiding indecision without escalating tension. A practical approach discussed in the conversation is to keep the patient moving forward—choose a direction, refine, and confirm improvement against the habitual prescription when possible.
The iCare scene: the detail that breaks immersion
The group’s biggest accuracy critique is the iCare tonometry moment. The device is held too far from the cornea, the alignment cues don’t match what clinicians expect, and the exaggerated “aggressive” handling turns the tool into a prop rather than a believable instrument.
For eye care professionals, it’s a reminder of a bigger pattern: Hollywood often gets what a device is called right, but not how it’s used. That difference matters because patients absorb the visual language of care. A tool used incorrectly on screen can subtly change expectations in the exam lane.
The “MRI in the exam room” moment
Another comedic accuracy break: the film shows an optometrist presenting fundus imagery alongside what appears to be a full MRI image—an unrealistic pairing for a routine optometric visit. The podcast rightly treats this as entertainment rather than education, but it’s also a prompt: when patients see advanced imaging in media, they may overestimate what is standard in primary eye care settings.
That does not mean clinicians should defend the profession. It means practices can proactively explain what technology they do use (OCT, fundus photography, visual fields) and why that matters for real outcomes.
