Whys and wherefores

As a clinical psychologist, I was glad to read Stephen Farber’s commentary (“Psychology as a short subject,” Dec. 8). I thought it was just me. I figured it’s only because of my profession that I look for in-depth motivations of characters. I often walk out of screenings asking, “But, why was he/she like that?” Then I tell myself, “Oh, Carol, it’s only because you’re a psychologist that it interests you.” I’m afraid most people don’t want to look beneath the surface anymore; they just want to believe that “why” is some sort of “chemical imbalance” and they can take a pill to cure all emotional pain. Unfortunately for the Hollywood development people (who may be on anti-depressants themselves), pill-taking offers little in the way of dramatic possibilities. It’s a major challenge to dramatize the inner workings of the mind, but when the challenge is met successfully, art that informs and transforms the human spirit can result.

Look at Sidney Lumet’s “The Pawnbroker.” The darkness of Rod Steiger’s racist Holocaust survivor was so shocking, and so brilliantly illuminated by the film, that seeing this film most likely changed the direction of my life. I knew I must study psychology in college.

I don’t think movies should all be transformative. If only they’d just try to make more sense of what it means to be human.

Carol Saturansky

San Francisco