For that matter, how do directors justify making violent movies or movies that contain immoral messages?
I realise there’s an argument for free speech here.
Directors should be able to make the movies they want, because no other human being should be able to determine what is and isn’t acceptable.
That’s fine.
But I mean a slightly different thing.
I’m asking: how do directors justify to themselves creating something that could have a negative emotional impact on other human beings? What motivates them to do it, and what is their reasoning to themselves?
I ask having watched The Hustler last night.
It’s about a pool shark who, having formed a relationship with an engaging but damaged young woman, is forced to choose between glory on the billiards table and her. It’s a great movie, featuring excellent performances from Paul Newman and Piper Laurie.
But it’s also unrelentingly downbeat.
So what motivated director Robert Ressen to make it?
Could it perhaps be an exercise in catharsis, in that Ressen is using the movie to deal with his own demons? Could it be a lesson to his audience, advising us to value our human relationships above all else?
I’m sure Ressen was a decent person after all.
I doubt he'd have befriended a stranger, only to spend two hours abusing them, or bringing them down in conversation.
So why is an audience different?
Hmm.
I realise I’m on thin ice here. I realise I’m perhaps advocating a return to 1950s censorship, or a media comprising almost solely of upbeat children’s programming.
But I just can’t see why someone would go to so much trouble to create something so saddening. Or in general, for that matter.
Isn’t life tough enough?
Answers on a postcard to the usual address, if you please.
[Get it here: The Hustler (1961)]
