I am a library trustee. I thought it would be a good idea to view the “Happiness” movie that a few people would like to see banned from our library. Frankly, I was prompted by more than a simple sense of duty to see the movie. I was also curious to see what people were up in arms about, to discover what was in the movie that was frightening to people.

At the last board meeting one patron read a statement asking the board to refrain from banning the movie and suggested that this issue be addressed by the newly formed Development Committee. Another patron read a passionate opinion asking the board to ban the movie based on its subject matter. He agreed that it would be a good idea for all trustees and everyone in the community to see the movie so they can make their own judgments. I respect any person’s right to challenge any library material. However, I believe that if a vote were to occur about this movie, any trustee who did not preview it should abstain from voting.

The central characters in “Happiness” are anything but happy. Our focus is immediately aimed at a suburban family headed by two aging parents whose marriage is on the skids. Veteran mainstream actors Ben Gazzara and Louise Lasser play the distress parents. Their children include three middle-aged daughters who have serious problems of their own.

One daughter has a boyfriend who is a thief. Another daughter has a successful career but she is stalked by an extremely pathetic and unhappy obscene phone caller. The third daughter is a talkative housewife who, at first glance, appears to have it all. She tells everyone who will listen that her life is better than theirs.  She lives in a very nice suburban home. She has two contented children and a successful psychologist husband. What she does not know until late in the story is that her husband is also a pedophile.

I expected the movie to be visually littered with nudity and depictions of sexual depravity based on comments I heard from other people. In fact, there is just one10 second lovemaking scene that does contain limited nudity. Other than that, look elsewhere for visual stimulation if that is your bag. You would be better served watching the afternoon soap operas.

Having said that, I will admit that the movie is very disturbing. The suggestion that there might be a guy living in our own suburban neighborhood who appears well adjusted might also be stalking our children. I cannot think of a thought much more terrifying than that. The idea that you might have to deal with an obscene phone caller one day is not comforting. It is a scary thought that human beings are “flawed and damaged creatures” as one astute reviewer said about the characters in this movie.

The movie cover is clearly marked “Mature Audiences Only” and “Viewer Discretion Is Advised”. After viewing the movie I see no reason to ban it from the library collection. To do so would be telling other adults that we do not want them to see material relating to uncomfortable subjects. We would also be denying their First Amendment rights. However, as a trustee I would be willing to discuss the possibility of segregating this movie from our library borrowers under the age of 18.