bnorthup
01-15-2002, 12:47 PM
A Beautiful Mind (PG-13)
At the Circus
BN: Four stars
Critics split about merits of schizophrenic film
By Brent Northup
An enlightening debate has erupted following the release of the movie “A Beautiful Mind.” Psychologists, historians and moviegoers are engaged in an enlightening dialogue about the merits of this controversial biography of Princeton mathematician John Nash.
The movie tells the story of a young genius whose promising life is jeopardized by a lifelong battle with schizophrenia. The disease costs him his job and nearly costs him his family. The story is told in a brilliantly conceived way – without telling us until later what is real and what is not inside Nash’s mind.
Director Ron Howard portrays his struggle with dignity and, blessedly, with restraint. Russell Crowe’s performance is stunning in its interior subtlety. He plays Nash as an awkward misfit with a well-hidden, but warm heart. That heart attracts a graduate student’s attention – she courts him and they are married. (The movie skirts the issue of dating and marrying students, a controversial lesson plan.) With her help, Nash is able to battle back from the nightmares of his mental illness to rejoin the Princeton faculty, culminating in a Nobel Prize.
The tale is uplifting and touching. I had tears in my eyes on numerous occasions, and left the theater inspired and deeply moved. “A Beautiful Mind” joins “Mulholland Drive” and “Moulin Rouge” as three films I’m hoping will be nominated for Best Picture, when Oscar speaks next month.
So what’s the controversy? There are two – an historical one and a psychological one. New York Times critic A.O. Scott ripped the script for oversimplifying Nash’s life. Scott points out that Nash’s wife divorced him, that he had relations with men and that he was arrested for soliciting sex in a men’s room. Much later, his wife remarried him. Scott argues that Howard sanitized Nash’s life to a point that the integrity of the biography is lost.
But in Howard’s defense, people who knew Nash have joined the fight to defend the film. One Princeton friend has written a column in the Washington Post defending the portrayal of Nash as remarkably accurate, capturing the essence of the eccentric man who was simultaneously loved and ridiculed on campus.
The second debate is being waged among mental health experts. Critics argue that the sympathetic portrayal of Nash as someone who stopped taking medicine and “cured himself” through “strength of will” is a dangerous message to send to patients. Professionals argue that this lifelong disease needs continual intervention and rarely responds to “will power.” They also are upset over portrayals of shock therapy and other outdated means of treating the disease.
But there are psychologists championing the film as well. They say that the film humanizes schizophrenia, removing the stigma surrounding victims. They argue that the film will help end bigotry and fear towards mental health patients and set the stage for integrating them into mainstream society.
As for me, I believe that the spiritual power of the film greatly outweighs the historical liberties taken. I felt that the portrayal of his illness was a masterful glimpse inside the mind of a mentally disturbed person. As a bonus, the positive portrayal of mathematicians and of science education is refreshing. (I started college as a math major.)
It seems uncontestable to say that “A Beautiful Mind” has started a dialogue that will benefit us all. People are arguing about the nature of mental illness and stereotypes are being challenged. That’s healthy. Intellectually, I can appreciate the debates over the film. Emotionally, “A Beautiful Mind” is a slam-dunk – a powerful movie that sent shivers through me and deeply touched me. In this case, I feel that heart trumps mind.
END
At the Circus
BN: Four stars
Critics split about merits of schizophrenic film
By Brent Northup
An enlightening debate has erupted following the release of the movie “A Beautiful Mind.” Psychologists, historians and moviegoers are engaged in an enlightening dialogue about the merits of this controversial biography of Princeton mathematician John Nash.
The movie tells the story of a young genius whose promising life is jeopardized by a lifelong battle with schizophrenia. The disease costs him his job and nearly costs him his family. The story is told in a brilliantly conceived way – without telling us until later what is real and what is not inside Nash’s mind.
Director Ron Howard portrays his struggle with dignity and, blessedly, with restraint. Russell Crowe’s performance is stunning in its interior subtlety. He plays Nash as an awkward misfit with a well-hidden, but warm heart. That heart attracts a graduate student’s attention – she courts him and they are married. (The movie skirts the issue of dating and marrying students, a controversial lesson plan.) With her help, Nash is able to battle back from the nightmares of his mental illness to rejoin the Princeton faculty, culminating in a Nobel Prize.
The tale is uplifting and touching. I had tears in my eyes on numerous occasions, and left the theater inspired and deeply moved. “A Beautiful Mind” joins “Mulholland Drive” and “Moulin Rouge” as three films I’m hoping will be nominated for Best Picture, when Oscar speaks next month.
So what’s the controversy? There are two – an historical one and a psychological one. New York Times critic A.O. Scott ripped the script for oversimplifying Nash’s life. Scott points out that Nash’s wife divorced him, that he had relations with men and that he was arrested for soliciting sex in a men’s room. Much later, his wife remarried him. Scott argues that Howard sanitized Nash’s life to a point that the integrity of the biography is lost.
But in Howard’s defense, people who knew Nash have joined the fight to defend the film. One Princeton friend has written a column in the Washington Post defending the portrayal of Nash as remarkably accurate, capturing the essence of the eccentric man who was simultaneously loved and ridiculed on campus.
The second debate is being waged among mental health experts. Critics argue that the sympathetic portrayal of Nash as someone who stopped taking medicine and “cured himself” through “strength of will” is a dangerous message to send to patients. Professionals argue that this lifelong disease needs continual intervention and rarely responds to “will power.” They also are upset over portrayals of shock therapy and other outdated means of treating the disease.
But there are psychologists championing the film as well. They say that the film humanizes schizophrenia, removing the stigma surrounding victims. They argue that the film will help end bigotry and fear towards mental health patients and set the stage for integrating them into mainstream society.
As for me, I believe that the spiritual power of the film greatly outweighs the historical liberties taken. I felt that the portrayal of his illness was a masterful glimpse inside the mind of a mentally disturbed person. As a bonus, the positive portrayal of mathematicians and of science education is refreshing. (I started college as a math major.)
It seems uncontestable to say that “A Beautiful Mind” has started a dialogue that will benefit us all. People are arguing about the nature of mental illness and stereotypes are being challenged. That’s healthy. Intellectually, I can appreciate the debates over the film. Emotionally, “A Beautiful Mind” is a slam-dunk – a powerful movie that sent shivers through me and deeply touched me. In this case, I feel that heart trumps mind.
END